Hansard Transcripts 1979-Jun-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with the House’s concurrence I am doing something different today. It is a privilege to pay tribute to Helen Allen, the author of “Today’s Child,” a woman of great dedication and sensitivity, whose efforts on behalf of hard-to-place children have earned her the gratitude and affection of thousands of children and their adoptive parents.

Miss Allen has worked quietly and without fanfare for more than 16 years in this most important social area. Her column began at a time when there was difficulty gaining acceptance for older children, those with mixed racial backgrounds and the handicapped. Children such as these more often than not had little more than institutional care ahead of them. Miss Allen became a mother to them all. Her detailed and personal portraits of the children she featured in her column presented the challenge and rewards potential parents could expect through adopting one of her children. Each column, I believe it is fair to say, reads as if it was written by a proud mother, anxious to talk about a favourite son or daughter. She opened the hearts and minds of many people, and for that the people of this province, the children and their families owe her a great debt of gratitude and appreciation.

“Today’s Child,” which was started in 1964 in the Toronto Telegram with the co-operation of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, now appears in more than 100 daily and weekly newspapers throughout this province. In addition, Miss Allen inaugurated the television version, Family Finder, in 1969. When the Telegram closed in 1971, Miss Allen continued the column in co-operation with the ministry. It has now many imitators throughout North America and indeed throughout the world.

Miss Allen has freely shared her experience with children’s workers from these jurisdictions and helped them along the way towards establishing their own programs. She was able to reassure these people, many of them professionals, who were concerned about the use of the media in the adoption process. The same concerns about confidentiality and the like were quickly overcome in Ontario through the positive results that came almost immediately from “Today’s Child.” Since then, more than 10,000 adoptions have taken place in Ontario.

Helen Allen had already made a considerable contribution as a newspaper woman in the province before she began “Today’s Child.” She has been a general reporter, movie critic, women’s editor, features editor and political writer. Her work saw her involved with many of the major events of our times. Her readers could always count on the clarity, fairness, sensitivity and accuracy of her reports, qualities that she brought to each “Today’s Child.”

Therefore, in this International Year of the Child, I believe it is proper and fitting that we in this Legislature acknowledge to Helen Allen, on behalf of the people in the province and those whose lives she has touched with the joy of family-sharing, that we do truly appreciate the great work she has done and wish to commemorate it through this ceremony here today.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those of us in the official opposition, I wish to associate ourselves with the excellent remarks just made by the Premier. People have tried over the years various forms of social organizations. All of them have their good and bad points yet one finds, as the years pass, that there is no real substitute for the family as we know it, the traditional family unit. There have been very interesting attempts at group and communal living; there have been interesting and valuable institutional arrangements with excellent people, but there is still no substitute for the family.

Miss Allen took the fact that there were thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of children around the world who did not have easy access to a home and family. Instead of doing as so many of us do, cursing the darkness, she thought to light a candle. Little by little, she herself and those who have taken on the method which she pioneered have brought about that warmth and that family life for thousands and thousands of young human beings who otherwise might not have had that chance. All of us are in her debt. It is an honour simply to be associated with those who would do for humanity what Miss Allen has done. We salute her and wish her well.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the voice of a child who was contributing his or her opinion about the scroll which is being given to Helen Allen. I think it is a very positive endorsation coming from the gallery. I would like to join with it and with the words of the Premier and of the Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to speak not just on behalf of my party, but also as a parent who has on a number of occasions discussed with my wife, after reading a column of Helen Allen’s with maybe one or two girls in it, since we have boys, the possibility of adding to our family. Helen Mien’s column has for us, and I am sure for many thousands of other people across the province, always kept to the fore that question of whether you can in fact be a parent to some kids who need parents. Can you expand your heart and can you expand your family in order to include these particular children? I think that kind of challenge is very important in a society which for too many of us tends to be, or is becoming, a kind of “me” society where we look only at our own personal needs and not at the needs of the community as a whole.

Adoption has traditionally been thought of as going to the hospital and bringing home a bright little blond baby, a week or two old, who will coo, be adoring and do what babies are meant to do. But the facts are -- and that’s what “Today’s Child” and the Family Finder television show have shown -- that there are real children out there and that there are problems in adoption in terms of finding adoptive parents for older children, for kids who have health problems, for kids who in some cases have been scarred emotionally because of their family background or who have other kinds of mental problems, for kids who perhaps have some degree of retardation and for kids who have enormously strong ties with their family, their cultural group or ethnic group or with their siblings, ties which if possible should not be broken.

I think it is almost a miracle that at times Helen Allen, through her column and through the TV show, has been able to find parents for family groups of as many as four or five children together, who should not by any stretch of the imagination be separated, but who might otherwise be condemned to live out their childhood in institutions rather than with a family. Through her column over the course of the last 16 years, Helen Allen has helped to make adoption of the difficult-to-place children just as acceptable as adoption of the adorable young infant.

On behalf of everyone here in the Legislature, I wish to say that the fact that the column itself has placed 3,600 children over the past 15 and 16 years -- and Helen Allen can look to that as an accomplishment -- and many thousands more children in this province and other parts of the world have also been able to find families because of this column and because of its imitators in other jurisdictions, is an accomplishment to be proud of in one’s life. If I were able to reach my senior citizenship -- or any of us -- with that accomplishment behind me, I would feel it was a life well spent.

We congratulate Helen Allen on her accomplishment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that we have not done this in the House before -- or certainly not for some time -- I am not sure exactly what the rules provide. I thought that since Miss Allen is not allowed to come on the floor of the Chamber, perhaps you would join me, Mr. Speaker, and we would go to the edge of the assembly for this presentation of a scroll to Miss Allen.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this is to some extent in the same spirit, so I wonder if I could have your indulgence and the indulgence of the members of the House for just a moment.

I want to rise to draw the attention of members to the plight of Vietnamese refugees who, we are told, are being put out to sea in leaky boats. I would hope, and I know that our House would be unanimous in the view, that Ontario, through the Premier, should state our willingness to accept our share of these refugees and to encourage the government of Canada to state its willingness on the international scene to accept our fair share of these refugees from Viet Nam.

We have in our time as a country accepted on a humanitarian basis people in great difficulty and I am sure our country and our province would want to rise to this occasion. I know that members would share this sentiment with me. If we could express ourselves through our government, I know we would feel much better about it at this important time on the world stage.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to say a couple of words about what is happening in southeast Asia as well. Yesterday at the provincial council meeting of the Ontario New Democratic Party, my party passed an emergency resolution that condemned the genocide taking place in Viet Nam and expressed grave concern at the actions of the governments of Malaysia, the Philippines and other countries in the southeast Asia area, in seeking to turn away the refugees, the boat people. We called on the government of Canada to open Canada’s hearts and open our doors to provide leadership to the rest of the world in accepting more of these refugees and also in providing financial and material support to the countries such as Malaysia, which are now bearing the burden of having to lodge them.

[2:15]

I would like also to join in the sentiments that have been expressed and to ask the Premier if he would convey those to the government of Canada. I would like to suggest it would perhaps be appropriate that, by agreement between the three parties, a motion to that effect could be adopted by this Legislature, perhaps at our sitting tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, actually the new Minister of Immigration was in touch and we had a brief discussion in cabinet on Wednesday. We have already communicated to Mr. Atkey the agreement of this province to accept and assist an increased number of Vietnamese people. This action is already underway. Mr. Atkey was in communication, I believe it was last Tuesday or Wednesday. Cabinet discussed it on Wednesday of last week and I believe the communique has already gone to Mr. Atkey indicating our intent to assist and co-operate on the assumption the government of Canada is probably going to increase the number of Vietnamese refugees coming into this country.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, just prior to leaving for Israel, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) promised to give updated information on tenders called by the ministries and said he would have that for us “tomorrow morning,” which was last Friday morning. That information was not provided. In fact, the minister has instead gone off to Jerusalem or other places in Israel.

I want to bring to your attention, the information we have that companies in Canada are still being asked to bid on tender documents which require such things as Kodak Ektalite or Bell & Howell SR-900 microfiche readers. In other words, products of multinational firms often made outside of this country are being used in Ontario government specifications, rather than neutral documents or documents that specify Canadian-built equipment.

EXCHANGE OF TAX INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the honourable members that this morning four exchange of information agreements were signed between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The agreements, signed by myself, the Honourable Jacques Parizeau, Quebec Minister of Finance and of Revenue, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), formalize the exchange of taxpayer information to ease the tax administration process and to provide for intergovernmental fuel tax adjustments between the two provinces. Tax statutes of the two provinces provide for this type of exchange of information by mutual agreement.

I would like to point out that Ontario has interprovincial taxation agreements in one form or another with every province in Canada.

Specifically, the formal tax agreements between Ontario and Quebec provide: First, for the exchange of gasoline and fuel tax information and direct intergovernmental adjustments of tax where fuel has been taxed in one province and transferred in bulk to another.

Second, for the exchange of audit information and joint audits where taxpayers operate in both provinces.

Third, for both provinces to advise the other of the proposed tax assessments which affect the other’s revenue or income allocation to avoid double taxation.

Fourth, for Ontario and Quebec to carry out tax investigations on a co-operative basis in an effort to reduce tax evasion.

Collectively, these formalized measures will largely reduce the incidence of double taxation and will significantly simplify the taxation process for taxpayers with dealings in both jurisdictions. Additionally, the ongoing exchange of taxation data and the use of joint audits will put to more effective use the manpower resources of both revenue ministries, and the combined investigative capacity of the two provinces working together should have a substantial impact on the incidence of tax evasion.

Although these same exchanges of information between Ontario and Quebec existed until today on the basis of informal letters of understanding, not unlike present arrangements with other provincial jurisdictions, I see the formalization of these arrangements as a very important advance in the reduction of double taxation affecting the citizens of our two provinces.

The staff of both ministries have worked very hard for a number of months to formulate this comprehensive set of agreements. I am sure the signing this morning will be of mutual benefit to both jurisdictions in the administration of our respective taxing statutes.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that a 50-50 cost-sharing agreement has been reached between the government of Ontario and the government of Canada to provide $58 million over the next five years for the development and demonstration of renewable energy and energy conservation technologies.

As honourable members know, in the last 12 months Ontario has launched a number of energy conservation programs, including an innovative program at the municipal level; a program to encourage commercial building operators in downtown Toronto to dim the night skyline; a program to identify energy conservation techniques for the province’s 800 skating rinks and arenas; several pilot thermography information and home energy analysis projects in selected communities throughout the province; an experimental car-pooling and van-pooling project; and programs to advance knowledge and understanding of the potential for district heating and industrial cogeneration.

The agreement announced today is an important additional contribution towards realizing Ontario’s policy objective of reducing the provincial rate of growth of demand for energy to two per cent by 1985 from the present growth rate of 2.9 per cent. This reduction would represent a saving equivalent to about 40 million barrels of crude oil per year in 1985. I am pleased to say we are well on the way to achieving that goal. Prior to the 1973 oil crisis, Ontario’s demand for energy grew at a rate of more than five per cent per year.

In the area of renewable energy development, the Ministry of Energy has played a key role in demonstrating the potential for solar energy equipment in the first solar-heated school in the country in St. Catharines, Ontario; a public swimming pool in Richmond Hill; a hospital in Oakville; a high school in the borough of Etobicoke; Ontario Housing Corporation’s homes in Toronto; and a senior citizens residence in Aylmer.

Similarly, the ministry has been working with municipalities, the private sector and industry on projects to turn waste, whether it be in the form of garbage, wood waste, farm waste or waste heat, into usable energy.

Mr. Wildman: What’s happening in Hearst? Tell us about that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: By the year 2000, we expect that at least two per cent of Ontario’s primary energy requirements will be met by the further development of indigenous renewable energy resources. While that goal may seem modest, it translates into roughly the equivalent of 20 million barrels of oil annually, enough to heat almost one million new homes.

In the ministry’s view, it is an entirely reasonable target, keeping in mind the current state of renewable technology and the reality that other competing energy supplies are still cheaper and more reliable for most applications. It is our hope and our expectation, however, that the new agreement will significantly enhance the prospects that technology being developed elsewhere will be successfully adapted to Canadian conditions and that Canadian renewable energy technology will be developed on a selected basis.

Because Ontario is already a leader in Canada in most areas of energy conservation and renewable energy, this program will stimulate the province’s growing renewable energy and conservation industrial capability. It will also further strengthen the competitive position of Ontario firms to take advantage of the industrial development opportunities arising from similar agreements being negotiated between the federal government and other provinces.

The Ministry of Energy will administer the program in Ontario. The allocation of funds will be approved by a management committee consisting of representatives of both governments. In general terms, the following principles will govern the disposition of the funds:

First, funds will be allocated to those areas where there is the greatest potential for achieving energy savings or for demonstrating the application of renewable-energy technology rather than to individuals for small-scale, private projects.

Second, the general criteria for choosing projects will include the potential for conservation of energy or for the development of alternative energy; cost-effectiveness; contribution to employment; impact on public awareness; private-sector interest and participation, including cost-sharing; and the potential contribution to Canadian energy, industrial, trade, regional and environmental objectives.

Under the terms of the agreement, the governments of Ontario and Canada will share equally the costs of projects. Third parties may also participate in projects and would normally be expected to assume a portion of the costs.

In this latter connection, and to assist us to allocate the funds to achieve maximum results, we will be seeking the co-operation of many sectors of the community. Specifically, we will be asking those industry associations and groups which can benefit directly from information resulting from development and demonstration projects to identify those opportunities and candidate projects which can best serve the needs of many. In fact, a key condition which must be met before a proposal will be considered by the Ministry of Energy is whether it clearly sets out in a demonstrable way the benefits which the project will bring to the community at large.

One example of the kind 0f proposal which could be considered is a proposal from condominium associations which may want to get together to identify conservation or renewable-energy projects for their buildings. In this way, projects in a few locations will help many others determine what is feasible and cost-effective. Church groups may want to do the same thing.

Another example: The Ministry of Energy has been working with the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada in preparing a guide for builders on how to incorporate energy-efficient layout and design, passive solar heating design and solar domestic hot water units in new home construction.

We have discussed with the Ontario executive of HUDAC the possibility of adapting the designs of some model homes to incorporate these new approaches to give all builders and the home-buying public an opportunity to see what can be achieved. This kind of project could have a significant impact on the energy needs of new homes.

In brief, this will be our approach to the allocation of these funds.

Over the next few months, detailed announcements of how the funds will be allocated and invitations for submissions of project proposals will be forthcoming.

I should stress that this is not a program to subsidize the investment costs of individual businesses or home owners. Rather, it is a program to advance energy conservation and renewable-energy technologies so that reliable new products and techniques will be available for the public to invest in according to their own needs. As such, it will make a significant contribution to safeguarding our energy future and conserving our nonrenewable resources.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that, as the House is to sit at 10 o’clock Thursday morning, the ballot for the private members’ business will be held at 9:30 a.m. on that date.

The Leader of the Opposition for question period.

Mr. S. Smith: I was waiting for “Oral questions,” Mr. Speaker. Without that, I don’t salivate on time; I need that signal.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Energy on one or two points stemming from his statement to the Legislature?

First of all, how does he imagine that Ontario can achieve the technological leadership in the field of conservation of renewable energy, which we believe is within our grasp if we only work at it, when he and the federal government are going to put about $6 million each per year into this enterprise, while in the United States, for solar energy alone and without even talking of conservation and all the other forms of renewable energy, they are putting in $650 million in one year alone?

With these paltry sums, compared to the $4.5 billion or $5 billion that Darlington is scheduled to cost, how does he imagine we can possibly compete on the world scene? Why is he letting that particular area of technological expertise pass us by with these trifling sums of money?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I have said in the House previously, we don’t intend to attempt to solve all the problems and invent all the new technology. What we are doing is, first of all, observing what is being done in a public way in other jurisdictions, and spending some time and money on adapting schemes that seem to have promise in other jurisdictions to the unique situations we have in various parts of our province, which differ again from situations in other provinces in the country.

In my remarks a few moments ago I did not say we are expecting to become the world leaders in conservation and exploitation and technology in renewable energy and conservation; I said the program “will stimulate the province’s growing renewable energy and conservation industrial capability. It will also further strengthen the competitive position of Ontario firms to take advantage of the industrial development opportunities….”

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, why shouldn’t we be world leaders? We spend billions on education here. We don’t have to go totally down the nuclear road. Why doesn’t the government aim high and make us world leaders in renewable energy and conservation techniques? The world will need it.

May I ask, furthermore, what is this interesting new government policy objective of reducing the provincial rate of growth of demand for energy to two per cent by 1985? That sure isn’t what Ontario Hydro told us when it was in front of us. Their electricity projections are about four and a half per cent, and their projections for total energy growth are well above two per cent.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am speaking of total energy growth, and that is the goal announced by this ministry and by my predecessors in this ministry some time ago.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why this government has set its sights so low in terms of what renewable energy and conservation can contribute to our energy needs? Is the minister not aware that through conservation techniques it should be possible to bring our energy demands back down to the level of eight or 10 years ago; that is, to cut our energy needs by about 20 or 25 per cent with no loss at all, either in industrial production or in the standard of living? Why is it that the government is only talking about two per cent of our total energy needs coming from renewable energy sources or from conservation when the potential, if the government showed leadership, is so much greater?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Again, I don’t agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party that we can have an actual reduction in energy use. Quite frankly, my personal opinion is I don’t think that is a feasible target in any part of North America. I do think we can reduce the rate of growth of the total energy demand significantly, and that is exactly what I said.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. S. Smith: I was going to direct a question to either the Premier or the Deputy Premier. Oh, there is the Deputy Premier with his back to me.

Let me ask a question of the Deputy Premier in his capacity as Provincial Secretary for Justice. In view of the minister’s comment last week that rape crisis centres should establish community support for their ongoing projects and his statement that the government was no longer willing to give them ongoing funds but rather wants to use its money for short-term projects, would the minister explain what organizations such as the Hamilton rape crisis centre are supposed to do when they have a source of community funds from the United Way but that support is contingent upon their also getting some money from the government? They have some $14,500 from the United Way, if the government comes up with its $15,000. Would it not be fairer to give an incentive to these rape crisis centres and offer at least to match contributions they receive from their own communities?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition will perhaps recall, when the community information centre program of the province was established by the former Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, that was the relationship and that is how Hamilton got involved. The interesting question which the member may want to ask at the community level is how much fragmentation do we want on community information facilities? There may be some point at which to approach this whole question in some co-ordinated way. How many crisis telephone numbers, how many facilities for this type of community response, does each community want to support?

I would point out to the member that it is not a case of giving up support of the rape crisis centres. There has been no established formula for support in so far as this facility is concerned. In an attempt to be helpful, we have been saying to the Ontario rape crisis co-ordinators let’s discuss ways in which we can help them to become better known in their communities and to assist them in some practical ways to invite the community to become far more involved in support of their programs. Let’s be honest. We have a number of competing needs in each community. Where are we going to stop if we get involved in each individual program along the way? Aren’t there other ways in which we can be helpful?

To go back to the member’s original question, he will find in Hamilton and in many communities throughout the province, community information centres already in place with this relationship of so much from the United Appeal and so much from the provincial government. I am wondering how much consultation there has been with these people, the Ontario rape crisis people and those community information facilities that are already in place and are being funded the very way the member talks about.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister not understand the very important difference between the function of a rape crisis centre and the functioning of a community information service? Does the minister not recognize in Hamilton the rape crisis centre will have to close down if the government doesn’t come up with its share of the money so that it can collect the community share of the money from the voluntary sector?

At the very least, why doesn’t the government make the same offer? First of all, give Hamilton its share so that it can get its money from the United Way and, secondly, make the same offer to the other rape crisis centres across Ontario.

If the government wants ns to believe the reason it is holding back on them is that it wants to avoid a multiplicity of services, why is the government starting a new service in Brampton, announced by the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) recently, to assist victims of various other crimes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Great town.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister not realize the importance of assisting the victims of one of the most serious crimes of our time, one which is on the increase, namely, rape?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would assume that the very progressive program announced by my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services, would encompass the victims of that particular criminal activity. There is no reason to say that would be precluded.

Secondly, I point out to the member that in many of the communities throughout this province there are care lines and there are crisis centres, most of which are looking to the community for support. I am quite aware that there are special needs, depending on the crisis. There are battered children, battered wives and all sorts of specific areas of concern to which we would address ourselves in this co-ordinated way.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the government care about any of them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I must say that I haven’t met with the Hamilton people, but I would be very happy to meet with them to sit down and discuss their particular needs with them.

Mr. S. Smith: Give them the government share and let them get their community share. You won’t even do that.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: Would the Deputy Premier confer with his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), and inform the House of his response to the request by the Ontario Status of Women Council for an investigation report on the recent OPP study which described young rape victims as promiscuous and indiscreet?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I suppose the straightforward answer is yes, I would be very happy to ask the Solicitor General to respond to that. This is not the first time this matter has been brought up in the House. I thought the matter had been responded to at an earlier time. I will bring the matter up again with the Solicitor General.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING: NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. Cassidy: I want to ask the Chairman of Management Board a question about government purchasing which arises from the case of Canadian Applied Technology, which we raised last week, and its unsuccessful bid to supply the Ministry of the Environment with an air quality monitoring device in Nanticoke.

Is the minister aware that there was no public opening of bids for this contract of roughly $200,000? Is the minister aware that although the company, CAT, knows that its bid was lower than that of the winning firm from Texas it has never been able to find out what the winning firm bid? Is it government policy to prevent companies that bid for Ontario government contracts from knowing what the other bidders bid or what the winners bid? Is that now government policy and is that also government policy with regard to the public’s knowing what is bid on Ontario government contracts?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is my understanding that where tenders are for items on which there is a certain element of judgement and a certain number of conditions attached, they are not opened publicly. If it’s for a specific item in which several are able to supply exactly the same equipment, those tenders can be opened publicly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: We’ve been talking with the ministry’s officials today. Is the minister aware that according to the information we’ve been able to gather, a majority of purchases which are made by the government do not have public openings of tender but are carried out in some other way to which the public appears to have no access? Could the minister explain why it is the Management Board doesn’t require as a matter of course that ministries of the government publish a list of all bidders and of bid prices on government contracts? This is the standard practice in major municipalities across the province. Surely if we had a government that was committed to ensuring that the taxpayers’ money was spent effectively, it would also be a matter of course that bidders and bid prices would be published by the Ontario government.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think I already explained that to the leader of the third party. Where a very complicated evaluation process is necessary with a tender, those are not opened publicly. It wouldn’t serve any particular interest to do such. Where the tenders involve a standard kind of equipment and it’s a question of price only, then the normal procedure would be to have a public opening -- if the bidders requested it.

Mr. Hall: Supplementary: In view of the fact that on Monday, June 11, my leader asked the Minister of the Environment to make public the reasons for the rejection of Canadian Applied Technology’s bid on the Nanticoke environment management program, and since the company had informed us they are willing to have the information made public, and since the written permission the minister requested from the company has been received in two separate letters dated June 11 and June 13, will he speak to his colleague and see that this information is made available to the House? Does the government intend to stall on this matter until the session is over?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’ll be glad to bring to the attention of the Minister of the Environment the fact that the honourable member asked that question.

Mr. Laughren: As it would appear the weighting government ministries apply in the decision-making process is weighted more to things like technical considerations rather than Canadian content, would the Chairman of Management Board direct all the ministries to attach a very heavy weighting to the Canadian content part of the decision-making process, so we can see there is a real commitment to the whole idea of Canadian content in the awarding of government purchases?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As the honourable member knows, there has always been a Canadian and Ontario preference. However, I will be glad to take a look at that policy to see it is fair to those people in Ontario and Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: May I read by way of a final supplementary to the minister a quote which says: “I think we are interested in fair trading, but I think we understand without realistic access to at least our own domestic market on a nation-wide basis we will be effectively prevented from developing the technology that is needed in many critical industries”? That quote is from the Minister of Industry and Tourism in the minister’s own government. How can he possibly say things of this kind and then discriminate against Canadian companies the way he has in the case of CAT?

Mr. Eakins: Where is Larry today?

Mr. Bolan: Trying to mend fences.

[2:45]

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I want the minister to answer this question. Is it not the case that any ministry that says there are technical questions involved with a particular purchase can thereby suppress public scrutiny of the tendering process and refuse to publish the tender prices and the bids on a particular contract? Is that proper stewardship of the money of the taxpayers of Ontario? Should not they be compelled to publish all of the tenders and, in cases where technical merit had greater weight than price, explain why it was that price alone did not govern the choice of contractor on that particular bid?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a retreat to pre-Hydro scandal, early-1950 days.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member knows the answer to that question.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that arrogance or ignorance?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I thought we had open tendering in this government, and obviously we do not have any more. I am really shocked to find this out.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You look it.

Mr. S. Smith: The Duplessis regime was the same.

Mr. Cassidy: It is back to the days of George Drew -- away back in the 1930s --

Mr. Speaker: Question!

SKILLS TRAINING FOR WOMEN

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Since women make up 40 per cent of the work force of Ontario, could the minister explain to the House why, according to the figures she has tabled in the House, less than one per cent of the workers who have been enrolled in employer-sponsored training are women?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain that. But it is my hope, as a result of the encouragement that is being given to women to consider very seriously skill training as an alternative and viable career choice, that many more women will be interested in involving themselves in such programs.

A new employer-sponsored training agreement in the machine building trades was signed just last week, and an increased percentage of the applicants for that educational process will be women.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that over the course of the past four years 1,700 women have taken courses at community colleges across the province to introduce them to non-traditional occupations, they have taken 75,000 training days to prepare for non-traditional occupations, and yet the ministry’s most recent figures show that only four women are taking apprenticeships in the construction trades, compared with 11,957 men, and only 11 women are taking apprenticeships in the motive power trades, compared with 9,793 men?

What steps is the government going to take to ensure that women have adequate access to the apprenticeships, which they are obviously eager to take but cannot get into now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: To my knowledge, the doors are wide open to those women who choose to enter that kind of apprenticeship program. It is nontraditional. We have been attempting to demonstrate to many young women that these are reasonable career choices for them and some which they should pursue, and it is my sincere hope that that is exactly what they will do. To my knowledge, there is no impediment to the entrance of women into any of those skill-training programs.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that, since the government has not yet declared the sections of Bill 70 which replace the old Mining Act, women are prohibited in mining communities from taking part in most apprenticeship programs because they cannot work underground, according to the law?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware, too, Mr. Speaker, that all the employers in that area know that section of the bill has been modified and will take effect when the bill is promulgated. There is no reason at all why the women should not be involved in apprenticeship programs on the basis of that foreknowledge.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

With respect to the minister’s recent decision regarding the declaration of some of the townships surrounding Lake Nipissing as disaster areas, but not the four unorganized townships of Macpherson, Loudon, Latchford and Bertram in the northwest area, is the minister aware that there are still some tourist camps in these townships that are still under some water at this time?

Since the appeal to the Minister of Industry and Tourism last month for his support, as head of the province’s tourist sector, was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs informed of their plight by the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and what steps is the minister taking further to help the townships at this time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any record of having any direct contact from those areas to be designated as a disaster area. If they so wish to be considered, I would be happy to look at the situation.

Mr. Bolan: How does the minister explain the government’s reasoning in declaring the townships of North Himsworth and Nipissing as disaster areas, which incidentally are in the riding of the member for Parry Sound, but not the unorganized townships of Macpherson, Loudon, Latchford and Bertram, when they received every bit as much damage as those areas which were declared disaster areas and which did apply to the government for some form of assistance? Is the level of the lake at one end lower than at the other?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If you will remember you asked about the other townships first. You got caught. Look after your own people.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is a rather strange connotation in my friend’s question. I should think he would be the last one to point a finger and suggest, which I take from his question, that there is some kind of favouritism towards ridings represented by the government in this program.

Mr. Bolan: What other interpretation do you have?

Mr. S. Smith: Then there is no reason to vote Tory if that is the case.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might point out that if those particular areas are interested in being considered -- I have not had them drawn to my attention -- we will certainly look at those particular areas, but I draw to my friend’s attention that probably one of the biggest coordinated government enterprises in response to a flood situation is occurring in his particular riding in the area of Field.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware of testimony given to the social development committee last week by several prominent Toronto physicians, mostly from teaching hospitals, which questioned the current statistics provided by the Ministry of Health on the number of beds per thousand, and indicating that the ratio might be substantially less than the ministry currently purports it to be if one considers nonresidents and teaching hospitals and several other variants? Is he concerned that this might lead to a rather drastic shortage of beds in the city of Toronto this summer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that such a presentation was made, although I must admit I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down and read the Hansard of that meeting. At least six to eight weeks ago we held a meeting with representatives of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the University Teaching Association of Metropolitan Toronto, at which time we discussed the whole question of beds in Metro. From having spoken to the Wellesley clinical day, I was aware then of this view. In fact I think I acknowledged when I was last at the social development committee, to discuss beds and the like, that that view is not unlike one we share that there is a certain level of utilization of what we at present call active treatment beds for long-term purposes.

I asked this joint planning group made up of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and UTHA to look at this matter and to work with us on how that might be rationalized to ensure that in Metropolitan Toronto we do not fall below the planning standard for active treatment beds available for active treatment purposes.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask the minister if he is then rejecting their contention that he is already below that standard, and would this fall into the category of what the Ontario Medical Association referred to as a situation in which clinical brinkmanship is coming into play?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I understand from those of my staff who were present that in their calculations they do not show, I believe it is, nonresident use. I said to them when the theory was first broached with me that certainly we would be concerned about that. That is why I asked to meet with HCMT and UTHA, as part of planning for the future to ensure that in Metro we do not fall below that planning standard, and at the same time we ensure that we are meeting the ongoing needs for extended and chronic care.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary to the minister: Has the minister any knowledge of, has he expressed an opinion about, or is he concerned about the fact that large hospitals such as the Wellesley in Toronto and the Ottawa Civic are going into the summer planning to shut down a very substantial number of beds? Granted they’ve done this in the past, but is he concerned that, for example, the Wellesley will be closing, I believe, about 161 beds for the summer period? Is that of concern to him?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is a practice that has gone on for as long as most can recall, to take account of the fact that in the summertime, first of all, doctors and nursing staff have to have their holidays; and as well to take account of the fact that for elective procedures, as often as not, it’s difficult to get patients to take bookings in that time. As long as it is not putting life and limb at risk, it’s a procedure which is an indication of good management of the resources.

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister is treating the matter of the impact of nonresident patients on the ratio as news, new information, can the minister tell us whether or not he received Dr. Hugh Smythe’s calculations which were sent to him, according to Dr. Smythe in committee, on April 4? Secondly, why has the minister never bothered to respond to Dr. Smythe when he sent him that material some three months ago?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: April 4, by my calculations, is a little over two months ago, but yes, they were received. As a matter of fact they were, I believe, referred to by me when I met with the joint planning group of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the University Teaching Hospitals Association.

Mr. McClellan: So you didn’t just find out about it last week.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As well, I understood there had been a response sent from my ministry which apparently wasn’t received. When I found that out last week when he appeared before your committee I asked somebody to check to see why and what had happened. I haven’t had a report on that yet, but I understood we had at least acknowledged receipt of that. We have followed up with HCMT and UTHA, who are the planning bodies for hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. McClellan: Do you want to share that with us?

ESSEX OPP DETACHMENT

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General aware that in the county of Essex 401 detachment, one shift has as few as two people on duty for the whole county of Essex?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I’m not, Mr. Speaker. I’d be happy to inquire into it if it’s the wish of the honourable member.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that this detachment at one time had 64 on the staff and now it’s down to 38 and it covers all the provincial highways in the county of Essex, plus about eight municipalities?

Mr. S. Smith: That is why you’ve been looking for more money. Right, Roy?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, that’s one of the reasons. I’ll certainly be very pleased to inquire into that matter and attempt to ascertain why what would appear to be a dramatic reduction, if the member’s figures are correct, has taken place.

Mr. Bradley: They’re all on the QEW harassing drivers.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the apparently final decision of the Sudbury Board of Education not to re-employ a first-year teacher who had diabetes and whose sight may deteriorate, has the Minister of Labour talked to the chairperson of the Sudbury Board of Education? Does he agree that the reason given by the Sudbury board, which is that the students had the right to the best teachers available and that that teacher must be in good physical and mental condition and so forth, was really a self-serving decision to save money just in case, in the years to come, there are sick benefits which would have to be paid to Mr. Morrissey if his sight does deteriorate?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In answer to one part of the question, no, I have not spoken to the chairman. I understand the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has had that matter looked into.

With regard to the individual question of Mr. Morrissey, it’s difficult, as the member knows, to get into a discussion of an individual person’s problem, because diabetic retinopathy, which is what Mr. Morrissey has, varies greatly from individual to individual and so I think it would be improper to try to assess his case individually. As a general principle, I would agree with the member that protection for the physically handicapped, which would include someone with diabetic retinopathy, is an item which will be dealt with in the new code.

[3:00]

Mr. Laughren: I suspect the minister will agree with me that what the students will learn by the employment of someone who is handicapped, even if his or her condition does deteriorate, is that the value is much greater than can be measured by the saving of sick benefits to the board of education. I suspect the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) raised this a week or so ago with him as well, but would the minister not bring forward recommendation 79 of the 1977 human rights report, A Life Together, which does just what the minister mentioned a moment ago? I suspect that all parties in this House would support it and I see no reason why he could not bring it in this week. Would the minister make that commitment so that we can get this problem dealt with and prevent it from recurring in the future as well?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to make it very clear that we all have the same objective, that is, to get that particular amendment in place. As the member knows, it is part of a broader review of the code. That issue will be dealt with in legislation. Whether it will be dealt with this week is unlikely, but it certainly will be dealt with in this session in one way or another, and it will in particular refer to that matter of the handicapped.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of situations where people are refused employment on the basis that the group disability insurance might not be willing to insure that particular individual because of a known disability and of perhaps greater propensity of likelihood of eventual long-term disability? If the minister is aware of this practice, will he take steps either to eradicate the practice or to arrange for people at the very least to have some pro-rata arrangement made regarding their insurability so that their lack of insurability doesn’t turn into a lack of employability, doubling and trebling the hardship upon these individuals?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am well aware, as the honourable member is from his practice, of the fact that people with disabilities, including, for example, my own wife with a congenital disability, have great trouble getting insurance for that type of protection. Certainly that is an issue that will have to be dealt with as part of this whole business of giving the handicapped some protection under the new Human Rights Code. I hope to be in the forefront in trying to give that kind of protection through the insurance portion of the industry that we are concerned about now.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister tell us what he will do now to protect the job of Mr. Morrissey?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is interesting that the member wishes to pursue it, but I am telling him that it is impossible to introduce the code this week. As he knows, even if it were introduced this week, it couldn’t be passed this week. But I would give him the assurance that a new code will be introduced to this Legislature, probably early in the fall. He has my undertaking on that.

Mr. Laughren: What will you do for Mr. Morrissey?

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Is the minister satisfied with the level of funding being provided to regular schools for special programs and specialized training for teachers, in light of the fact that these schools are at present being asked to accept those who have been in institutions previously where the pupil-teacher ratio has been favourable, where there has been specialized training and where there have been special programs that have been fully funded? Is the minister satisfied that the schools to which they are now being sent have sufficient funding and availability of specialized teachers to handle this situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The special education weighting factor can be applied in a number of ways by the school board when it requires that kind of special assistance within a school establishment. The board makes the decision about the most appropriate schools for those young people to attend if they are being transferred from other kinds of institutions into group homes and then into the educational system.

That process has been going on for several years and most of the boards are fairly expert in developing the appropriate kinds of arrangements. The special weighting factor for that educational program most certainly does apply to those as well. It depends upon the way in which the school boards utilize the funds, once they have been allocated from the ministry.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Would the minister agree that unless, as she says, the school boards utilize those funds appropriately and unless those funds are in sufficient number, it would have a severely disruptive effect on the regular classrooms, or classrooms where the mentally retarded are being educated in regular schools, having severely retarded individuals being sent to these schools where the teachers are not sufficiently trained or are not there in sufficient numbers to handle the situation they are being asked to handle? Would she not agree also that it would not really benefit those who are being taken from the institutions and placed in those classrooms?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the principle and the policy has always been that the equality of educational opportunity for those children with development handicaps is a reasonable alternative -- in fact an effective and much-to-be-desired alternative -- to institutionalization.

That principle I think has been accepted by a number of boards. They’ve also accepted the principle that this should be done without damage to the educational program for the students within the regular system. I think most boards are attempting diligently to ensure those two policies are carried out effectively. We’re frying to support them as effectively as possible in that.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it not true that boards were already taking advantage of this weighting factor before the government started its massive deinstitutionalization? The government has in effect deinstitutionalized students but has not taken the money it has saved from this program and redistributed it to school boards, so there has not been an increase in funding to school boards to cope with these types of children.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the weighting factor depends specifically on the numbers of children within the programs within these school boards’ jurisdiction. Indeed, there is a transfer.

Mr. Cooke: You know better than that.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that elderly people receiving Gains in this province and who have spouses in nursing homes are being asked to pay as much as $80 a month out of their own pockets to supplement the fees paid by their spouses for nursing home care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the per diem rate is calculated on the basis of the maximum OAS/GIS/Gains income and then deducting from that the comfort allowance of $51, to arrive at the amount of the co-payment.

If there are any particular problems where that formula is not working I would suspect it’s probably in cases where individuals are eligible for but have not applied for GIS and/or Gains. If there are particular cases the honourable member would like to draw to my attention, I’d be glad to look into them. That’s really all I can answer at this time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary: At least two cases have been brought to my attention that have included costs which have risen as high as $390, which is well above the Gains limit. I would like to be assured that if that is the case around the province, amendments to the Nursing Homes Act would prohibit the nursing homes from billing these spouses for these costs.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, it’s a little difficult to answer without some of the details. If the honourable member has them with him, if he would send them over to me, or if he would send them in a letter, I will investigate each one and get back to the member.

Mr. Cooke: When are you going to bring the amendments in? When do we get the amendments to the Nursing Homes Act?

ANNEX PLAN

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Will the Premier ensure to the residents of the Annex, including the Elgin-Lowther residents, the payment of their costs in the sum of $22,000 to successfully support their part two plan at the OMB? In view of the fact the cabinet has now returned that decision to the OMB, they require those costs to be able to once more try to protect their plan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that undertaking. I don’t recall a precedent whereby we have paid costs for groups or individuals as a result of official plan discussions before the Ontario Municipal Board which may or may not have appeared before cabinet by way of appeal.

I understand the member’s concern on behalf of her constituents, but I think she is also relatively experienced in these procedures and understands that for the government to start to pay costs for a particular party to any of these hearings would be a difficult precedent to live with, and in this case to establish. As I say, I understand her raising the question, but I am in no position to give such an undertaking.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary: Is the Premier not aware that under the previous administration there was provision and in fact some costs were allocated by the previous chairman for those who had to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board? In this case, since the cabinet has intervened and not given reasons for the intervention, surely those people should be protected and not placed in a prejudiced position to try to protect their own plan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a distinction between what the board chairman may order or award and the request the member for St. George is making of the government, which is payment to this particular group of ratepayers for their costs. I think there is a distinction.

ASBESTOS WORKERS

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain why it is that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has slowed down its program of allowing workers of the Johns-Manville plant, with proven cases of asbestosis or asbestos fibre dust effects, to come out of that plant and enter into the special rehabilitation assistance program, a program his predecessor described as being innovative and a leader in this area of the world?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’m not certain that what the member says is true. I certainly have personally looked into the question of the special rehabilitation program.

Mr. Wildman: If the member says it, it is true.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member has information that would lead me to believe it isn’t being utilized at that Johns-Manville plant as it should be then I’d be pleased to have it.

Mr. M. Davidson: Given the last occasion a person was taken out of that plant was in November, 1978, is the minister not aware there are still 14 employees on partial disability pension resulting from asbestosis or dust effects working in that plant? Does he not feel that they should be removed from that environment as soon as possible? If he does feel that way, will he demand that the compensation board speed up rather than slow down the program of special assistance?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don’t think there is any argument about the value of that program. I concur completely with it. If the member has information on those people he feels are being kept out of that program when they should be in it, if he will give it to me I’ll look into it.

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Given the announcement by the minister approximately two weeks ago that the school boards of the province were informed by memorandum that they must, by September 1979, begin a program of early identification of learning disabilities; also given that such a program can only work if at least the teachers in kindergarten and grade one are properly trained to diagnose the kinds of problems we’re looking for, what kinds of training programs have been prepared for the period between now and then to implement that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the models of the early identification programs which have been established successfully in various areas of the province have been publicized to the various school boards. I would remind the honourable member that, indeed, the memorandum to the school boards directed that they must begin the implementation of a program which was to be complete by September 1980. The educational programs for teachers which will be functioning this summer will be ongoing during the winter as well.

I think it would be improper to suggest we are anticipating that teachers will make specific diagnoses. In the early identification program we don’t particularly want to label children with anything. What we do want is that the school boards, and the teachers in the school system, are sensitive to the potential problems which children may have in the learning process. I think it would be a mistake if we were to suggest that teachers should be saying that this child has a specific kind of deficiency or problem or attach another kind of label to that child. Labelling does not really seem to help most of the children, but it certainly should help if the whole system becomes more sensitive to the needs of the individual child, particularly in the light of potential problems that child may have.

[3:15]

Mr. Sweeney: Is the minister aware that the vast bulk of primary teachers across the province are quite insecure about the role they are going to play in this new program? They simply do not understand it. What steps is the minister taking to correct this insecurity and to help them prepare, even if we are talking about a year or two years away rather than September 1979?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have had no indication from directors of education or from primary teachers’ groups that there is any insecurity. Most of the teachers I have talked to, and certainly the directors of education and the boards, are enthusiastically in support of the development of this kind of program. If there is that kind of insecurity, we will be very happy to look at it and see what we can do to assist in removing it.

NIAGARA OMB HEARINGS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Does the Premier recall that last February the Ontario Municipal Board announced its decision on the first half of the hearings on the Niagara food lands? Is he aware that the developers and at least one municipality have used every means at their disposal, including appeals to the OMB, appeals to the courts and an appeal to the cabinet, to upset that decision?

Now that the OMB has adjourned the hearings on the second half until those appeals to the OMB and the courts are cleared up -- because everyone agrees that the final determination on the first half is so fundamental to the hearings on the second half -- what possible reason is there for the deliberate delay in the ruling on the appeal to the cabinet until after the hearings on the second half are completed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to trace the chronology of this. Is the member suggesting we are deliberately delaying the appeals on the first half?

Mr. Swart: The appeal to the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are not deliberately delaying anything.

Mr. Swart: May I read to the Premier the letter sent out by the secretary of the cabinet, which states: “I have been directed by the cabinet to inform you it has been decided that no decision will be made with respect to the petition mentioned above until after a decision has been pronounced by the Ontario Municipal Board, following the hearing with respect to the official plan for the Niagara planning area. This hearing has been fixed for June 4.” June 4 was the start of the second hearings. May I ask the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a second. I said there was no deliberate delay. It has been deferred, and there is a very real distinction.

Mr. Swart: If I may complete my supplementary: Does the Premier not realize that the second phase of the hearings will cost between $500,000 and $750,000, and does he know it is the taxpayers of the Niagara region who will have to pay most of that?

Does he not understand that if he rules on the appeal, and if there is a policy decision by the cabinet before the second hearings start, a base could be established that might cut those costs at least in half? Now that the hearings have been postponed until at least July 15, to get these decisions from the courts and the OMB, will the cabinet reconsider and make a ruling on the appeal to the cabinet as soon as the courts have decided?

Hon. Mr. Davis: After listening to that lengthy dissertation, which may or may not have contained a question, my guess is that my answer would be the same: My answer would be no.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Would he convey to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who I trust will be back tomorrow, that despite what has been said about the banning of 2,4-D in school yards, 2,4-D plays a most important role in the food production process -- in other words, the discovery of 2,4-D to the farmers is almost equivalent to the discovery of penicillin to us, the general public -- and that before the minister has any thought of banning 2,4-D he must consult with the agricultural industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the honourable member, where was he last week? Why did he sit there in abject silence when this issue was being debated? Why did he not get up and have the courage, as he has today when the television cameras are no longer on, to say how essential 2,4-D is to the agricultural community in this province? Why doesn’t the member talk to his leader about it?

I will certainly convey that to the Minister of the Environment because I am delighted to hear somebody opposite for once say something important on this issue.

Mr. S. Smith: On a matter of privilege, if I might, because there was some allegation made about the courage of the member, I would remind the Premier, who may not have been in the House, that the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) rose to explain that 2,4-D had a very valid use in agriculture and encouraged that use in agriculture. However, he pointed out something of which the Premier apparently is unaware, that there is a difference between spraying crops and spraying children in school yards.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On that matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I recall the member talking about corn and the fact that he was spraying 2,4-D on corn. I recall it well. I also recall the member for Huron-Middlesex sitting there, I think sending notes back and forth. I am just really congratulating him on standing up today and speaking out on behalf of the agricultural community.

Mr. Cassidy: Since our questions were devoted to the question of spraying school yards where children could be exposed and not the question of agriculture at all, will the Premier join in our request to the Minister of the Environment that he stop the spraying of 2,4-D in school yards until they can establish just what the health hazards to school kids are because of this spraying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of the Environment has dealt with the subject very well, and extensively --

Mr. Mattel: Badly is the word.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no; the member for Sudbury East doesn’t know what that word means.

I can’t add anything to what the Minister of the Environment has so effectively discussed here with the members of the House on this very important issue.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Last week I asked the Premier about the emulsifier that was used in the spraying of the chemical. The Minister of the Environment still has not answered that question. There is great concern that the emulsifier, or the vehicle with which 2,4-D is combined, can have a serious detrimental effect on the youngsters, possibly causing Reyes syndrome. Will the Premier ask the minister to reply to that question, please?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that some members opposite obviously want to eat up some of the clock I will endeavour to answer that question.

I recall very well the member for Windsor-Walkerville asking the Minister of the Environment this question. I would be quite prepared, when the Minister of the Environment returns from his appearances in London, to have him seek out an answer for the member for Windsor-Walkerville. The member himself could have quite easily sent him a note on Friday to remind him, but I would be delighted to convey this message.

If there are any other messages for the Minister of the Environment, I would be delighted to communicate them on behalf of any member opposite.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. Isaacs: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. What does the minister intend to do to relieve the extreme hardship faced by chronic-care patients who are confined to hospitals and confined to wheelchairs, and who face the almost total elimination of their freedom and enjoyment of life as a result of the government’s $9.80 per day, or $3,577.00 a year co-payment charge?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is taking a great degree of licence in assuming those numbers of patients in chronic care are being disadvantaged. There are in fact cases where some are undergoing hardship. Those cases are under review and will be dealt with. There is no intention on the part of this government that anyone in a chronic-care facility undergo any undue hardship.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary: I believe the provincial secretary is aware of the situation facing patients in Chedoke Hospital in Hamilton. Is she also aware that her colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), told this House on March 12 that he would take a look at this problem and see what could be done to help those people, and that nothing has been done to help them to date?

Could the minister give us more than light assurances and indicate exactly what those people can expect to relieve them of the hardships that they are facing today?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable member: At the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition I did attend with him in Hamilton what was supposed to have been a private visit between the Leader of the Opposition, the people who are handicapped and who are facing difficulties and myself. It turned out to be an attempt to use those people politically. I was very distressed with the press being called in and the television interview set up; however, I can assure the honourable member I will be in touch with those people in the chronic-care facility and all of the needs and the concerns expressed to us that day will be dealt with.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am amazed the minister would say this. Does the minister not recall that in this House, quite publicly when we were discussing this very matter about the wheelchair patients she took one view about it, and I another? I invited her to come to Chedoke. After many phone calls back and forth she finally hit on a Sunday when she could come. I then rearranged my schedule so I could accompany her. All that happened there was this matter, which was a public matter, resulted in one reporter from the Hamilton Spectator being present and one reporter from station CHCH-TV.

I do not understand why the minister would say this was some kind of political trick or they were being used for political purposes. I invited her publicly in this House. She came. The other half of the deal, in fact, was I would go with her to some senior citizens’ establishment to see some who are happy with their circumstances. That was the deal in the House, and I stand ready to accept that. I deeply resent the notion there was any kind of trickery involved or any sort of undue publicity when the matter was a perfectly public matter right from the word go.

Mr. Havrot: You should apologize.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: On a point of order: The honourable member did invite me publicly to attend a meeting. My office immediately contacted his office and unfortunately, it was not convenient for the honourable member. Finally it was arranged on a Friday afternoon that it would be on that particular Sunday afternoon. The notes we have between our two offices were that it was to be a private visit. I was to be given the opportunity to speak with those handicapped people who were undergoing difficulties with the co-payments and there would be a tour of the hospital for me to see what was happening there. I arrived at about a quarter to five and I was met at the door by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, who was accompanied by a television cameraman. I was taken into a room that was already set up with the wheelchair people and I was to sit at the head table.

Mr. Yakabuski: You were set up.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I was set up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: If you can’t stand the heat, don’t stay in the kitchen.

Mr. Breaugh: What a despicable thing to hear.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Maybe I am naive, but I still find it very offensive.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I find it very offensive, when handicapped people are exploited. I went there to hear what they had to say. I can assure members that many of them didn’t speak to me because they didn’t want to speak publicly about the problems they were encountering.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order: I just want to point out to the members of the House that I have before me, as a result of earlier questions asked here and as a result of my colleague’s visit to Chedoke, a draft memorandum to administrators of chronic-care hospitals and chronic-care units to address this particular issue.

I’ve been particularly assisted by the observations of my honourable colleague.

Mr. S. Smith: May I have a copy of it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When it’s finalized, yes, sure.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITION

GEORGIAN BAY ARCHIPELAGO

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 1,036 residents of the Georgian Bay Archipelago area. It is addressed to the members of the Legislature in connection with the debate on Bill 100 regarding the establishment of the Georgian Bay Archipelago township and municipality debated in the Ontario Legislature on Friday June 15, 1979.

“We wish to emphatically indicate our strong support of the creation of a single municipality rather than two separate entities. We also wish to have the first reeve of the township selected by the elected councillors from amongst themselves. A single municipality can best protect the unique environment of this area and provide effective and efficient local government.”

I submit this from 1,036 people, plus the endorsation of all of the ratepayer groups in the area.

[3:30]

REPORT

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mrs. Campbell from the standing members’ services committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that standardized procedures be established by the government to ensure that the Legislative Library receive automatically and as soon as possible after publication two copies of all published research, public briefs and submissions, published back-up documentation and published reports of commissions of inquiry related to the government of Ontario.

Mrs. Campbell: We did file a report from the committee on May 31. At that time the wording of it created some ambiguity in the mind of the archivist. This report is simply to clarify that particular report. I will move the adjournment of the debate but I hope it won’t be until 1980.

On motion by Mrs. Campbell, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

SITTINGS OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday, June 21 the House will meet at 10 a.m., with a luncheon interval from 1 to 2 p.m. and with routine proceedings being called at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The purpose of the bill is to remove the requirement that one member of the board of commissioners of police be a county or district court judge. The bill implements the resolution of the honourable member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), which was adopted by this House on May 10, 1979.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 137, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the separate taxation of mobile home park operators and mobile home owners. Where a mobile home is assessed and taxed by a municipality, the tax collector must send a tax notice to the mobile home owner, indicating the amount of tax to be paid in respect of the assessed property. Any taxes due in respect of an assessed mobile home constitute a lien on the mobile home rather than against the land of the owner of the mobile home park.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is the same as the previous one amending the Municipal Act, only to apply to education taxation in unorganized areas of northern Ontario.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives effect to the recommendations in the June 14 report of the commission on election contributions and expenses with respect to indemnities and allowances of members of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to section 70a of the Legislative Assembly Act. In addition, the bill makes interim adjustments to indemnities which were not resolved in the commission’s report, except for the question of per diem payments which is being left entirely to the commission for further study as they requested.

In a moment I shall introduce the usual companion bill to amend the Executive Council Act by providing for the same uniform interim adjustments as in the first bill.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 225 and 226 and the interim answers to questions 222, 223, 224, 227 and 235 standing on the Notice Paper.

[Later (6:00)]

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 228 to 234 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments on any section of this bill?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, you will recall at the end of second reading on Friday last that I dispensed with my closing remarks, indicating I would make some brief remarks at the beginning of the committee of the whole so that we could have second reading on Friday afternoon. With your indulgence I would like to take just a few minutes to review some of the points that were raised on second reading.

Members of the Liberal Party particularly indicated they would be putting some amendments. I will deal with those in detail when we get to that section of the act, but I would like to thank all the members opposite for their support of the act in general and for their support of the principle of the bill.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) did raise a point about a lack of consultation, the fact that some residents in the area had asked for a public meeting and that public meeting was not forthcoming. I would indicate to the members of the House this request for a meeting came after a considerable number of meetings were held in the area. A number of people had signed a petition asking for a meeting but included in their petition a number of doubts they had about the bill. Before deciding whether or not to have the meeting, these points were answered by our staff person, Mr. Roger Warner, who has been dealing with this area for some two years and who visited a number of these people personally. We also sent them all a letter answering the points they had raised and the request for a meeting and saying if after reading the letter there were further problems, they should consult us again. Having heard nothing more from those people we felt there was no need to have a further meeting because the points they had raised had been answered by letter and answered by our staff person.

I would also say to the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), who indicated some lack of a consultation, that there was intense consultation -- this going back five or six years -- with the people of the area and many meetings over the past several years with Mr. Warner of our staff. There was a lot of consultation, before the introduction of the bill, with all the residents, both permanent and seasonal.

Now, of course, on any bill you don’t have the unanimous consent of everybody in the area to everything in the bill. But I would point out that a vast majority of the matters in this bill have the consent of almost everybody and there’s no one there who’s really unhappy with the bill, except for the possible amendment which will be raised this afternoon.

The member for Wentworth did raise a very legitimate question on Friday afternoon. He indicated there was nothing in the bill about the grants which would be paid to the new municipalities. That was not put in the bill because all of the grants are laid out in other pieces of legislation.

I think the member is correct in that possibly that matter should have been raised in the House, and I do apologize to him. I’d like to take a moment or two to indicate to the House the level of grants which will be forthcoming to the new municipalities which will be organized in Parry Sound.

Firstly, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provides subsidies for roads and maintenance. These will be continued. Townships will be subsidized at the rate of 80 per cent, both the new town of Kearney and the new township of Georgian Bay Archipelago. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that Kearney now being a town receives only a 50 per cent subsidy, but under the reconstructed municipality, the new township, they will receive the full 80 per cent.

Secondly, both townships will receive the Ontario unconditional grants. These consolidations of all the unorganized areas will specifically benefit from those grants, since as the areas are now presently unincorporated, they are not eligible for grants under this program. These grants include a per capita grant, a general support grant, a northern support grant, as well as a resource equalization grant.

The per capita grant amounts to about $7 per resident and includes a consideration of seasonal residents.

The general support grant is related to the municipal tax levy. Each municipality in Ontario receives a general support grant amounting to six per cent of its levy for local purposes.

Municipalities in northern Ontario are eligible for the general northern support grant. This provides an additional subsidy of 18 per cent to the levy for local purposes.

The resource equalization grant is paid to all municipalities who suffer from a “resource deficiency,” measured in terms of equalized assessment. Again, this grant provides a subsidy that is related to the levy for local purposes; the maximum rate is 25 per cent.

All of these grants put together are now in present legislation and did not have to be included in this bill. Through this grant program a municipality could conceivably qualify for a subsidy of up to 49 per cent of its levy for municipal purposes. In fact, it is estimated both Kearney and the archipelago will receive close to the maximum level of assistance.

In addition, each area will receive the per capita grant paid in respect of its substantial seasonal population. To be specific, it is estimated that Kearney will receive an increase of about 85 per cent or $15,000 in entitlements under the program and the township of Georgian Bay Archipelago will receive an amount of about $65,000.

I put this on the record because the member for Wentworth quite properly asked about it and I think it should be noted. It is not required to be in the legislation because all of these grants are covered by present legislation, all of which will apply, and there will be transitional grants. In the bill it’s indicated that the province will pay for the first elections.

I hope this covers all of the points raised by the member for Wentworth.

There’s just one other point which I will deal with more fully when we get to the clause by clause, but as you noted, Mr. Chairman, I did file a petition earlier today from the majority of people in the Georgian Bay Archipelago who noted on Friday there’s an indication there would be an amendment made that the Georgian Bay Archipelago would not be one municipality, as all the residents want; there will be two municipalities.

[3:45]

Although I will go into more detail a little later on about this petition, I’d simply like to say to the members opposite that both parties have from time to time and almost at all times preached the philosophy of local autonomy. In this particular situation, yes, there are some reasons why it should be two; there are some reasons why it should be one. I do not think there are any reasons that it should be two municipalities that would override the fact that the vast majority of the people who have been consulted over the past two years have opted at all times for one municipality, and that from roughly Friday evening, when they were aware of the notice of motion in the House, until Sunday afternoon, some two thirds of the households in the area signed in favour of keeping it as one municipality.

Whether or not they bring this amendment forward, I hope the members opposite will realize that if they do bring in the amendment and vote for it they will be doing that in the face of the vast majority of the people there who want it the other way. The reason there are only about two thirds of the households represented in the petition is simply that there were only 48 hours to gather signatures. Had they been given another few days, I am sure that many more people would have been able to sign this petition.

With those few remarks, I suggest that we go on to clause-by-clause consideration, and I will deal with any amendments as they come up in far more detail.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

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

“2. In this part ‘township’ means the township of Georgian Bay North Archipelago as constituted under section 3 or the township of Georgian Bay South Archipelago as constituted under section 3(a).”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, without belabouring this archipelago subject too long, I do want to reiterate just briefly the position I took on Friday. I thought it was the right position then, and I have no reason to believe at this time that it is the wrong position.

Essentially what we have here is a series of islands and some of the mainland, bisected in the centre by at least two or three other municipalities, including Parry Sound and Carling township. I do not think that it is very rational or very logical to have this one municipality made up of two parts, bisected in the centre by other municipalities, and to maintain that that is a logical extension.

In the future, if it does come about that all the people who are in the archipelago wish to have one large municipality, I suppose we might have to look at that again, but that is not the proposal before us.

The other thing is that we genuinely feel that the spirit of co-operation can prevail much better if there is a division here rather than a feeling of threat, whether that is legitimate or not. I am not a psychiatrist or one of those people who can read all kinds of minds, but there is a genuine feeling by many of the people on the mainland who live in some of the other municipalities that some kind of threat exists here if we have one large archipelago municipality.

As far as the new municipality is concerned, we feel it should be two; this will better serve not only the archipelago but also the whole area. In the future, if it should come that we want one large municipality, that can be determined at that time.

I want to comment just briefly about the petition that we have here. I commend the people for having the petition, but I think it must be reiterated -- and the member for Wilson Heights indicated one or two or three times that this was a majority of the people, and then some other times he changed it by saying it was a majority of the people who signed. I do not disagree with the fact that it could have been a majority of the people who signed, but if 1,000 signatures are a majority of the people in the archipelago then we have been misled by a number of sources. I thought the population of the whole archipelago was closer to about 7,000 than 1,000; a majority then would be about 3,500. I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister owes us an explanation of that.

The other thing is, I told him earlier with respect to this particular petition that I would like to have some evidence that these people signing the petition were given an explanation of our views as we explained on Friday. He couldn’t give us any commitment that our views, as we explained them in the Legislature the other day, were put forth to the people in the archipelago; in other words, that they could see the other side of the story and not only one side.

I’ve served on municipal council on many occasions over nine and a half years and we’ve found that in signing a petition not everybody gets a full explanation of the pros and cons before they sign. I would like some kind of confirmation or some kind of statement by the parliamentary assistant that this took place, that both sides were presented. I hope he can give us that.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, during the weekend I had the opportunity to speak to a number of people who live in the district of Parry Sound, especially in the western portion, the subject of this amendment. I have to say to the parliamentary assistant that that has reinforced my view that there has been very poor communication and very poor consultation with the people of the area with regard to Bill 100 that is before us now.

I had a total of 28 telephone conversations with people who are either permanent residents or seasonal residents in that area. Of those 28, 20 thought the bill that was before us provided for a single archipelago municipality encompassing all the islands, including the islands offshore of Carling township.

I have to say to the parliamentary assistant that if the proposal that was before us now was to do that, our views on it would be very different from our views on the bill that is before us.

There’s no doubt in my mind that there is considerable confusion in the archipelago as to what’s going on with regard to local government. I’ve checked as quickly as I could the petition that has been presented to us, and some of those who signed the petition were people I had spoken to, and they thought that a single municipality meant one municipality stretching all the way down the islands. I really don’t think we can say that the people who are involved in this have been adequately informed.

I’m not at all convinced that priority has been put on trying to come to a conclusion which satisfies as best as possible the majority of people in the western part of the Parry Sound district. The motion that is before us talks about splitting the already-divided municipality into two separate municipalities. I regret that it also changes the size of the council from 10 members to six, but we can live with that.

The amendment will provide the people of the two parts of the Georgian Bay Archipelago municipality with the right to decide for themselves, in consultation with the residents and local councillors in Carling and other townships, the best way to organize the provision of services for the whole of the archipelago.

The parliamentary assistant mentioned that he has had no objections to the single municipality concept. I wanted to say to him that perhaps that too reflects poor communication, because I have communicated with a number of people who live in Carling township, both seasonal residents and permanent residents, and they oppose the single municipality and support the divided, two municipalities.

For the parliamentary assistant to say local autonomy is all very well -- and he knows full well that we in this party do believe in local autonomy -- but I want to say to him that what goes on on neighbouring lands is very important to the people who live in an area. If an industrial development were to take place next to your home, Mr. Chairman, or next to my home, we would want a say in that industrial development -- for, against or how. That is why we have provisions that allow people who live in neighbouring lands to have input into planning decisions. I suggest this is a planning decision.

I also want to touch briefly on some of the points that have been made in the conversations I’ve had with residents of the area. One concern relates to the possibility of two municipalities being more expensive, and therefore higher taxes resulting than in a single municipality. That’s a legitimate concern. It is one that I very much hope does not come about and need not come about because the two councils can co-operate in any way they wish and can come together for the provision of services under the Municipal Act in order to provide services at the lowest possible cost to all the residents of the archipelago, and in particular to the residents of that part of the archipelago who are not subject to normal services because their only access is by water.

The studies that have been done by the former Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, studies that were provided to us by a number of people who have been involved in this over the years, indicate that not only would the two municipalities that are being proposed in the amendment be separately viable, but that smaller units would also be viable. Therefore I have to assume that the viability of the two areas is not a question within this amendment.

There have been concerns about planning aspects and about the future need to preserve the archipelago. I fully support those concerns. I submit to the parliamentary assistant that to see indiscriminate development taking place in any part of the 30,000 islands, be it the part that is in Carling township or the part that is in the one or two archipelago municipalities, would be very undesirable.

I want to suggest further that it may well be that development can be better controlled by having two councils speaking with a single voice to oppose development applications that are undoubtedly going to come before that area than it would be to have one. If the concern is preservation of the environment, and I believe, from the conversations I had, that that is the concern and a laudable concern, then the more people involved in making the decisions, in setting the rules and in keeping an eye on what’s going on in the area, the better for the welfare of the citizens of the area and for the preservation of that part of this beautiful province.

I really don’t feel the concerns that are being raised are based on a full understanding of the facts. The concern for the wishes of the people of Carling township is certainly a valid one, but it’s not the only one. Unfortunately, we’re not being presented with a bill that can be amended to set up a series of municipalities that might even better represent the wishes of the people of the islands and the shoreline to this House and to the rest of the province; instead we have to make do with making boundary changes as best we can to what is before us, to a proposal that in my view has not necessarily been rammed down the throats of the people of that area, but which certainly has been presented to them as a single option and not as one of very many options such as exist in reality.

We will be supporting the amendment. We don’t regard it as the final answer. We hope when problems arise in that area, as they will whatever the final structure, that the government will be prepared to introduce legislation to overcome those problems.

[4:00]

Finally I want to say that I believe the parliamentary assistant mentioned transitional grants without giving an indication of their amount. I’m confused as to whether the people of the archipelago municipalities and the other municipalities in the district can expect special transitional grants, special grants that are not provided for in legislation at the present time, or whether they will have to make do with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications grants and the other grants that are provided to every municipality.

I particularly ask about that because I am concerned there may be a tendency, especially if this amendment fails -- and I very much hope the amendment will not fail -- for tax dollars from the southern part of the archipelago municipality to go for the provision of services in the northern part. I could not support that under any circumstances. As the matter of grants was raised in the parliamentary assistant’s opening remarks, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that he will see fit and that you will permit him, to respond once again on that very important matter of transitional grants to meet the undoubtedly excessive start-up costs the municipalities in the area will face.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, to deal briefly with the last point raised by the member for Wentworth, no definite amount of transitional grant has yet been decided. It will depend on the expenses of the two townships, that is Kearney and Georgian Bay Archipelago, when they start up. Transitional grants are available for the hiring of initial staff, securing accommodation and facilities, getting an official plan going and so on.

Transitional grants are available. Unlike the other grants, the amounts are not set in legislation. We will simply decide on the amount of the transitional grants when the townships are going and when the budgetary problems are known.

To deal with the matter at hand, that is the one or two municipalities -- and I would point out that there are a number of other amendments to the bill today but we, on this side of the House, consider this by far the most important -- we consider this amendment one that changes the whole concept of the bill and we feel it is a very serious amendment. We would certainly ask members opposite to reconsider supporting this amendment.

There are some problems in having two municipalities. There are, in total, exactly -- well, I shouldn’t say “exactly,” I should say “about,” because population figures aren’t exact -- about 450 permanent residents in the two parts of the municipality. There will be about 300 in the northern section and 150 in the southern section. We really question whether or not that is a sufficient number of permanent residents to have a viable municipality.

In the past it was the attitude in Ontario to set up very small municipalities at every little junction, every post office and every corner. The 20th century feeling is that as municipalities become more sophisticated and require more services, more expertise, more engineering, planning and so on, a municipality should have a sufficient population and assessment base in order to be able to provide for those services and to provide reasonable staff, and in order to give the people of that municipality the services, staff and advice they deserve.

There is a communal interest, despite the fact that there is some water, and yes some land, between these two communities. There is certainly very much a communal interest between the two units. That is why a single unit was created, because the people are essentially cottagers and permanent residents who make their living from the recreation industry. There is a common bond to protect the Georgian Bay environment, to promote the cottage and recreation industry. Attempts to divide this community I think would frustrate the wishes of the people, the wishes of the cottagers and the wishes of the permanent residents.

A great deal has been made of the physical discontinuity, the fact that the northern and southern sections have the township of Carling in between, but it is no greater than the physical distance separating parts of these municipalities alone. These are both very much water-based municipalities. If you go from a point in the southern part of the archipelago municipality on the west over to the east, it is just as far by water as if you went from the south to the north. The vast majority of people in both municipalities get to their homes, their cottages, their permanent residences by water. What is the difference if you go by water around Carling or if you go by water through your own municipality?

Much was made the other day, but not today, about the fact that the Parry Sound study originally recommended two separate municipalities. This was part of a total package of recommendations, because the key to the original Parry Sound study was that Parry Sound district would be divided into two planning districts, east and west. This would give power to the western planning district. You would have one planning authority. If there was one planning authority for the northern and southern parts of the archipelago, plus Carling, plus Parry Sound, plus the other townships, then it might make a little bit of sense to have a smaller local area. It would be almost a two-tier system of government; not two-tiered in the way of Metro or some of the other regions but certainly a two-tier planning district.

In some of the early initial meetings a two-tier system of regional government was rejected by the people pretty well out of hand. The government, in its wisdom, abandoned the idea of a two-tier system because the people up there simply wouldn’t go for regional planning; therefore the idea of two municipalities as raised by the official study really falls by the board because the corollaries to that just aren’t present in the bill.

The proposed municipality is a water-based recreation community requiring limited physical services but with great need for activity in planning and environmental protection. There is need for municipal government throughout the area, illustrated by the activities of the Georgian Bay Association, which is really the unofficial municipal government so far. It is their intention, and I think our intention, to bring all the area into some form of organized municipal government. The association now provides such services as fire fighting, garbage sites -- with the assistance of the Ministry of Natural Resources -- emergency communications and rescue, community centres and water quality testing. All these are now provided by the association, but they can be much better provided by a viable municipality, not by two very small municipalities. They are provided now by one association on a co-operative basis.

The member for Waterloo North has said there should be two separate townships. He mentioned there can be co-operation but that people -- I think he referred to the people of Carling -- feel threatened. I don’t know why they would feel they were threatened. If they felt there was some reason this archipelago would absorb them, if they felt the provincial government was going to force them into a union which they didn’t want, then it would have already happened.

This government has taken the stand, quite frankly, that we are not going to force people into a marriage they don’t want, there will not be shot-gun weddings. If the people of Carling do not want to go in with the archipelago we are not going to force them into the archipelago, either now or later. This feeling of threat, I think, is a red herring. What the people in Carling township are really saying, I think, is keep it as two municipalities and then it will be much easier for Carling to absorb the two parts of the archipelago, one at a time, rather than being able to absorb a larger municipality.

Who knows if this feeling of threat is there or not? It can’t be substantiated. Is that more important than the feeling, put in writing by over 1,000 householders in the two parts of the archipelago, who said very plainly, “No, we do not want two municipalities; we want to be one”?

Mr. Bradley: You have a short memory over there. Remember Niagara?

Mr. Rotenberg: Oh, I remember Niagara.

Mr. Bradley: Our fears are based on the experience in Niagara.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Wentworth talked to 28 people over the weekend, I am sure. Twenty of them were a bit confused as to which islands were going in and which islands weren’t going in.

Mr. Kerrio: Bigger is not necessarily better.

Mr. Rotenberg: What he didn’t tell us was how many of those 20 people said yes, they wanted two municipalities. Reading between the lines of his remarks, I gathered they wanted one municipality but he feels some of them didn’t have the total facts.

Mr. Bradley: Is this regional government with another name?

Mr. Rotenberg: I speak particularly to my two critics who are here this afternoon, each of us having service on municipal council. We all know it is difficult at all times, no matter how many limes you explain, no matter how many public meetings you have, no matter how many information books you send out, to explain all the time, to all the people, all the facts. People do skim read, people only hear what they want to hear, people forget. It is human nature; it happens all the time in every government.

Mr. Epp: What you are saying, then, is that this petition may not be exactly legitimate?

Mr. Rotenberg: Sometimes people forget what they have been told between the time they talk to the government representative and the time they talk to the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s not how my people operate.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Waterloo North did raise a problem about the petition.

Mr. Breithaupt: You certainly had a busy weekend up there.

Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, they had a busy weekend up there. It shows the people up there are serious about having local government. When I talked about a majority, remember this was signed by adults and although there are places where more than one person per household signed it was basically to get one signature per household.

Mr. Bradley: It is very difficult to get people to sign petitions too.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would point out to the member for Waterloo North there are 1,563 households in the area representing approximately 5,000 people. When I indicated a majority, we had 1,036 households out of 1,563. I will say that among the 1,036 signatures maybe two from one household, there may be 50 or 100 that are duplicated in that fashion, but certainly far and away a majority of the households in the area have signed. Many of those who went around collecting the petition asked for only one signature per household. They didn’t get the husband and wife and certainly did not get the children to sign.

Mr. lsaacs: Did you organize it?

Mr. Rotenberg: I helped to organize it and I’m proud of the fact that I did.

Interjections.

Mr. Rotenberg: After the second reading debate on Friday, I spoke to the head of the Georgian Bay Association and said to him: “Look, there has been some question raised in the House as to whether it should be one municipality or two.” I spoke specifically and privately to the member for Wentworth and indicated to him that the majority of the people in the area wanted one municipality.

Standing just outside this chamber at about 1:10 p.m. or 1:15 p.m. on Friday, he said to me: “Have you any evidence as to the fact that this is what the people want?” I said: “I haven’t at the moment, but I will get it for you.” Basically to get the information for the members of the New Democratic Party, who are usually sensible when it comes to the majority of the people and local autonomy, I did say to the president of the association: “Look, we need some evidence that the people up in your area do want a municipality.” What I really anticipated was a resolution from the six associations. He went much farther than that and went out and got the petition.

I’d like just to read this to you from the South Channel Ratepayers Association which came up with 267 signatures: “In an effort to give everyone in the South Channel area an opportunity to express their point of view concerning this important issue, we visited every cottage on June 16. Unfortunately many people were not at their cottage on this particular weekend.” That’s why they didn’t get more people than they could have otherwise.

The Sans Souci and Copperhead association said: “In order to stress the support of our constituency, we have contacted as many of the residents of the area as was possible in the less than 48 hours available. We found overwhelming support for legislation creating a single archipelago municipality. We enclose signed petitions from over 300 residents to the members of the Ontario Legislature in evidence of this. Many of these signatures” -- and this is the point I wish to make to the member for Waterloo North because he is talking about majorities -- “represent the support of entire families whose other members were not immediately available.” They went after one per household.

I think that covers the points raised. I really have heard nothing from the other side of the House as to what is wrong with having the township in two parts. I have heard nothing, really, of any substance. I wonder whether members opposite, having gone over the bill -- which is a very good bill, as they themselves have said -- and having talked to the residents of the area and said to them -- because it’s been reported back that they did so -- “What’s wrong with the bill?”; having done all that they have now found out that the association up there told both parties that there was really nothing wrong with the bill. The only thing they found wrong with the bill was the fact that it took so long to get here.

Having been able to get no criticisms of the bill, I think members of the opposition feel they have to find something wrong with the bill and have picked on this as the place where they are going to take a stand. They have picked on this just to show that they have studied the bill -- and I commend them for it -- and picked on this as a place to say: “We’ve got to make a change to show that we’re the opposition and we have power in this Legislature too.”

There are places where this position is valuable and I certainly appreciate their point of view, but I would say to them in all sincerity: “Please do not impose your will in this particular case against the overwhelming” -- I certainly will not claim unanimous -- “wishes of all of the people in the area who are affected. Please do not impose a form of government which they do not want.”

For these reasons we will oppose this series of amendments, all of which say the same thing. I hope the members opposite will reconsider their position in light of the fact that the vast majority in the area don’t want this amendment and support the bill as originally brought forward.

Mr. Grande: You have now made your maiden speech.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond on two counts. First of all, I think it’s a cheap shot by the member for Wilson Heights to suggest for a moment that either this party or the other party would be submitting an amendment for the sake of just trying to flex their muscles. Despite the fact that he has this inclination from time to time, we don’t operate that way on this side of the House.

Mr. Handleman: You’ve never done that before.

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s wrong with the bill?

Mr. Epp: We’ve told you what’s wrong with the bill and we’ll show in some other places what’s wrong with the bill. Just be patient.

Mr. Rotenberg: There is nothing of substance wrong with the bill.

Mr. Epp: The other thing that’s happened, which is very apropos to divulge or bring out, is the fact that he continually makes assumptions that because some people have signed a petition and have favoured one municipality, therefore their spouse or somebody else in the family also favours that particular leaning. Maybe the other people didn’t want to sign. That could very well be the case. We also don’t know that they had the full explanation.

With that, I’ll leave it: I am prepared to vote on it.

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the members on Friday my feeling on this particular proposed amendment, but I have to point out that I cannot understand the inconsistency of the members opposite. They were quite prepared to accept petitions and so on when they decided that the northeast part of Conger township should become part of the archipelago. Now we have the majority of the people in the other portions of this proposed municipality who want to remain as one municipality, but the members opposite are not prepared to accept that.

If we are going to accept the argument that was used, and the amendment that is going to be made by the government, to which I finally agreed, then there should be some give and take. Because there was an overwhelming number of people who wanted northeast Conger to become part of the municipality of the archipelago, we agreed to that -- the members on this side, myself and the members opposite -- based mainly on the fact that that is what the people wanted. But now we stand here with a situation that the people want, and the members opposite have reversed their whole procedure and said: “We don’t care what the people want. We are going to make it into two municipalities.” It is not being consistent.

I beg the opposition to reconsider, because I believe the majority of the people in the proposed archipelago do want one municipality. If the members opposite are going to be consistent with the thoughts they had regarding the other amendment -- I do not know whether it has been proposed at this point in time but it will be later -- then let us be consistent and listen to the people and give them what they want.

Mr. Swart: I am going to speak very briefly on this, Mr. Chairman. On the question of whether there should be one municipality or two municipalities, and with regard to the wishes of the people, I would like to say a few words philosophically.

All of us in public life realize that we must give very substantial consideration to what the people want in any given area. On the other hand, it is also true that, if we are going to discharge our responsibilities as elected politicians, we have to look into things in depth, and if at times we determine from our in-depth investigation that there should be some deviation from what the people want, or what we think they want, sometimes we may have to do this. Good government works that way; it is one of the major factors, but not always the final factor, especially if we have no clear-cut indication of what the people want in any given area.

I am a bit perturbed, quite frankly, because during the four years I have been in this House -- and certainly before that time -- on some occasions when we were forming regional governments, there were meetings et cetera in the area, but the decision by the government was never taken on the basis of what the people wanted in that area. The regional government was determined by the government -- I will not say without consultation with various groups, but it was determined by the government. Now it looks as though we have gone almost the complete cycle.

Mr. Rotenberg: So have you.

Mr. Swart: Sometimes we have to go down the centre and give weight to the evidence that we have on the one hand compared to what we may think the people want at a given time on the other hand.

I want to say quite frankly on this amendment that we have before us that I do not think it is going to be disastrous whether we end up with one or two municipalities in that area. In fact, I think the decision that has already been made is the one that is going to end up being either an advantage or a great disadvantage to the people in the area, the decision that there is not going to be one archipelago municipality; there are going to be at least two. At the present time one has the Carling township area, the bay frontage along there. There is no question about it; that is going to be one municipality in an entirely different setting, an entirely different principle to that established with the archipelago municipality.

There are these conflicts and they are very legitimate conflicts, again philosophical conflicts, where one group says: “We should have the lake frontage in with the municipality -- the area behind and a large number of the permanent residents there -- to help pay the costs.” There is some legitimacy in that.

On the other hand, one says: “The municipalities have a community of interests. The archipelago should be together because their interests are the same.” They are not the same, the permanent residents in the area who may be farmers or whatever the case may be. We have already made a division on that basis. We are going to have one that incorporates one concept and another that incorporates the other concept. So we really have not followed though with anything in principle there.

Again I say I do not think it is going to make a great deal of difference. I think the people who are going to be in the one or two municipalities are going to be in a recreational area, a recreational community, a recreational municipality. They are going to dominate it. I think it will probably work well. The few permanent residents who are in those areas, from the discussions I have had with the recreational people and the permanent people it seems to me that there is not any great conflict between the two. But certainly the recreational area is going to dominate that. That will be true whether it is one or whether it is two municipalities. So I am not convinced that this is an earth-shaking decision being made at this time.

I find it difficult to believe that the two municipalities, even the north municipality, will not be viable on their own. The north municipality may be more viable, granted, if it is in with the other municipality. But there is no question that in an area like this, most of the services are going to be contracted out. The municipality is not going to start buying a garbage truck immediately or buying road equipment. It is going to be done by contract. I suppose the same contractors will probably be doing it for the south part of the archipelago as will be doing it for the north part and may even be doing some of it in the Carling area.

So it is not like a normal municipality. By normal I mean one that does not have that kind of lake frontage and does not have that high percentage of summer residents whose main purpose there is recreational. It is not like one of those municipalities where one would only have a municipality of 500 or 1,000 people endeavouring to run the operation on their own. This is an entirely different situation. I suggest they will basically be viable.

To counter that, there are the arguments put forth by the member for Wentworth that one would have the smaller, more contiguous units where the people certainly would have more input into the local municipalities, if there are two of them, than they would into the larger municipality. I think perhaps the opportunity for some greater degree of democracy overbalances the viability aspect of this.

We were sold on regional government by the fact that it was going to be efficient, that in the long term it was going to save money --

Mr. Kerrio: Mel, you said you would be brief.

Mr. Swart: -- that in fact we could have regional planning, we could have that overview that you couldn’t get when you had the local municipality.

Mr. Ashe: Do you support regional government?

Mr. Swart: Not the kind that you people put in, no!

Mr. Kerrio: Now you’re qualifying it.

Mr. Swart: Not the kind you people put in.

Mr. Kerrio: There’s only one kind, Mel; where do you find two?

Mr. Ashe: The old flip-flop again.

Mr. Kerrio: You are stuck with that one, Mel.

Mr. Swart: I just suggest to the member for Niagara Falls if he wants to have my views on regional government he should read the --

Mr. Kerrio: I’ve seen them, a hundred times over.

Mr. Swart: -- brief which I presented to the study group in Niagara at the time they were setting it up. He would find them so much at variance with the present one he would never recognize it. I challenge you to do that and then come back and say what you’re saying now.

Mr. Kerrio: You were in favour of regional government, Mel; you were in favour.

Mr. Swart: I’m sure you’d like me, Mr. Chairman, to get back to the amendment we have before us.

Mr. Kerrio: He blew it.

Mr. Swart: I guess just to sum this up, I believe there probably would be greater viability if you had it within one, if it was one municipality; but I believe there is greater accountability and democracy if you have two municipalities there.

Mr. Kerrio: Or three or four.

Mr. Ashe: Or 10; that’s even more.

Mr. Swart: I think there is a situation that can lead to considerable conflict if you have two separated areas, separated by another municipality, incorporated into one municipality. One will be strong; one will be weak. The majority of the members of council will come from one or the other; certainly the head of the municipality will have to come from one or the other. I suggest over a period of time you can build up some conflict with that sort of arrangement. Certainly it’s a new one; it would be the first of its kind in the province of Ontario.

The final reason for my support of the two municipalities concept is, it is always easier to join them together than it is to separate them. This has been found wherever it has taken place. In the Niagara region, when they wanted one regional government for the whole thing I said; “No, have two regional governments based largely on the old county line. Then you can join them together later if you determine it is advisable.” It is very difficult to break up this kind of marriage. It’s easier to live in single bliss for a period of time, take a look at the situation, and if there are arguments for joining together do it at that particular time.

Mr. Rotenberg: Just briefly; I’ve listened quite closely to the various members opposite.

Mr. Kerrio: They both started out briefly; neither one of them have lived up to it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Really, I’ve heard nothing from the members opposite which would in any way override the feeling of the people. Nothing is 100 per cent, nothing is completely black and white, but certainly none of the reasons I’ve heard this afternoon would indicate why one would, on a great matter of principle, have to vote against the wishes of the people in the area in order to have two municipalities instead of one.

I would point out I’m not basing the fact of the wishes of the people just on this petition. The petition is a reaffirmation. As you all know, there have been at least two years of public hearings and of meetings in the area -- ratepayer meetings, group meetings, meetings with ministry staff and meetings among themselves. Consistently, throughout all of these hearings of the past two years, the feeling has been at public meetings, at ratepayer meetings, with executives and so on, that they wanted one municipality. This has been everything they have asked for over the past two years. It has been consistent in all of that time.

Mr. Grande: When did this start, this business of you starting to listen to people, anyway?

Mr. Rotenberg: We don’t listen to you.

It’s been consistent in all of that time; this is what the people want. Suddenly at the 11th hour, for whatever reason, and certainly I wasn’t casting any aspersions on the motives of the member for Waterloo North, they say, “No, you can’t have the one municipality you’ve planned for the past years; you must have two.” Frankly, I don’t think this is the way to run a province. This is not the way to deal with these many citizens of our province, who in good faith have over several years attended many public meetings, have planned the organization of the new municipality, to now suddenly pull the rug out from under them for whatever reason. I would hope the members opposite will reconsider.

[4:30]

Mr. Isaacs: If I might just respond very briefly to some of the comments that have been made in this debate. First, to the parliamentary assistant: yes, it’s quite correct the overwhelming majority of people in the area want one municipality, but not this municipality. This municipality was not even being considered prior to the beginning of last year. The one municipality the people want is a single archipelago municipality stretching all the way from the northern limits of the archipelago to the southern limit. I think we should put on the record that if the sample of people who signed the petition and with whom I had the opportunity to communicate is representative, that is what many of them thought they were signing for.

Mr. Rotenberg: It’s not representative.

Mr. Isaacs: As an example, the chairman of the Bayfield and Narrows Inlet environment committee, who is a signatory to this petition, was speaking to me just after lunch today before coming into the House and she was surprised to learn that Bill 100 does not mean a single municipality for the whole archipelago but is the split concept introduced here. If the chairman of a ratepayers’ group is confused as to what is going on, then I suggest to the parliamentary assistant the consultation he thinks has taken place really hasn’t, and people don’t know what it is they are voting for when they sign this petition.

There are other letters that have been submitted here today that indicate it is not a unanimous opinion. There are opinions on both sides, all the way down the archipelago.

Mr. Rotenberg: It’s not unanimous, it’s just overwhelming. If one person disagrees it’s not unanimous.

Mr. Isaacs: I agree. I even challenge whether it’s overwhelming if the facts are laid out. In his earlier comments the parliamentary assistant asked me how many of the 28 I spoke to supported a single municipality. I want to tell him that they all supported a single archipelago municipality after I had explained to them what this bill proposed and explained to them the reasons we have and that have been presented here today for feeling that it might be better, at least as an interim step and possibly as a permanent step, to have two municipalities. Then they agreed that at least maybe we had a point. They did not necessarily agree with us because they hadn’t had an opportunity to think about it, but they felt that we had a point.

I really think that the views I expressed on Friday still hold; this ought to be a nonpartisan issue. What we ought to be looking for is the best way of providing local government to the people of this area and making sure that local councillors are accessible; making sure that local problems are dealt with by local people, rather than by municipal councillors who come from something that is close to being another municipality.

While there is a community of interest along the 30,000 Islands and along the shoreline itself, I really have to wonder whether the inclusion of fairly large pieces of inland territory, particularly those in the northern portion, doesn’t confuse the whole thing. It the people expressing their opinions through this petition really haven’t had the contents of Bill 100 presented to them, then I think it’s a pretty sad day to be saying this is what the people want. We certainly stand behind the views we expressed.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Epp’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

On section 3:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “On January 1, 1980, the inhabitants of those portions of the geographic townships of Shawanaga and Harrison, all of which lands are described in schedule A hereto, are incorporated as a township municipality hearing the name ‘The Corporation of the Township of Georgian Bay North Archipelago.’”

Mr. Epp: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, there is a provision in the bill that would permit the government to have a plebiscite with respect to the name. If the inhabitants were not happy with the name we’ve designated, they could change it at their pleasure at the first election.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, this implements what we have in the previous amendments, and all the arguments are the same. We, of course, will oppose this as being part of the previous amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Epp’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section 3(a): “On January 1, 1980, the inhabitants of the geographic township of Cowper and that portion of the geographic township of Conger, all of which lands are described in schedule AA hereto, are incorporated as a township-municipality bearing the name ‘The Corporation of the Township of Georgian Bay South Archipelago.’”

Is there any further discussion on this matter?

Are we agreed the vote will probably be the same and that we may stack this one likewise? I’m frying to short-circuit the procedure, but if we’re agreed to that, I’ll declare this one stacked as well.

Amendment stacked.

On section 4:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “(1) The council of a township shall consist of a reeve, to be elected by general vote, and six councillors.”

I gather the gist of this motion is somewhat different from the preceding amendment, and maybe the member would like to speak to it.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, there are two aspects to this. First, the hill as it now stands suggests the reeve should not be democratically elected by the people during the first vote but should be chosen by the councillors after they are elected. This is similar to the regional municipalities, where the chairman is selected by the elected representatives.

We have been told this is not a regional form of structure. We agree this is not a regional form of structure and yet we see here they are trying to slip in some things that have similarities to regional municipalities. We really believe the population has a right to have a say as to who the chief magistrate of that municipality is. We don’t think it should be given to half a dozen councillors to select who the leader of that municipality will be.

I think the people in the area deserve more than the government is prepared to give them. They deserve an opportunity to say who that person is going to be, whether it’s a lady or whether it’s a man. This is the reason for the amendment.

In addition, we feel that since the municipality will be smaller than the one originally envisioned there should be a smaller number of councillors. We feel that six is a reasonable number that can deal with the problems and the challenges of that municipality.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Isaacs: I have to begin to wonder why the section regarding appointment is in this bill and, again, I raised this matter with the people to whom I spoke over the weekend. I notice it’s also included in the petition.

It worries me greatly that the government feels and the petitioners seem to feel it’s okay to dispense with democracy. The only argument that has been presented to me in support of dispensing with democracy -- and perhaps the parliamentary assistant will have other arguments -- is that the people of the area will not know enough about what’s going on and enough about the people in the area that they can properly elect their own reeve.

I have to say that if that’s the reason then surely that’s in total contradiction to the points that have been made previously by the parliamentary assistant in terms of commonality of interest. If there is a commonality of interest there -- and obviously there is one; obviously these groups have been working together in the Georgian Bay Association, and we don’t dispute that, then why is it not appropriate for the people to elect their own reeve from among the people who have been active in the association or in some other way? Or perhaps they will reject association members and choose to elect a newcomer to the municipal political scene.

I really think that it is inappropriate to allow people to dispense with democracy on the basis of a petition. And I think it’s inappropriate for this bill to dispense with democracy on grounds which have not been properly explained and which, I suspect, cannot be properly explained.

So, Mr. Chairman, we too will be supporting this amendment.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, again this is not a totally black and white situation. In all the arguments the members opposite have ignored the fact that in section 4(2) the word “first” is there and is in there very prominently. The idea of this was that only the first reeve would be chosen by council. Thereafter, of course, the reeve would be elected at large.

On the basis that they would be going to an organized from an unorganized territory, this is the first time there will have been an election. It is felt that, in the first election, if 10 people run in their own particular district, that would be democracy. Then the 10 people would choose their first reeve, and only the first, from among themselves. In the second election, the reeve would have to run at large.

This is in order to help the people get to know each other a little better than they do now, so if there are a number of good people who are running they can each run for council and you won’t have three or four good people running for reeve and then be lost to the first council where the most serious work is to be done.

This would apply only in the circumstances that the previous motion which we stacked is not carried. If there are two separate municipalities and it’s a much more localized group then, of course, there will be much less need to have a council choose a reeve. If the first two motions do carry in the stacked vote, then this would be reasonably appropriate. But if the first two do not carry, I think we should continue the way we are.

I would put it to the member for Waterloo North on a strictly non-political, non-partisan basis that he has set up a reeve and six councillors. Normally, in most townships of the province, there is a reeve and four councillors. I’m just wondering why he has chosen six rather than four. If you have two separate municipalities it would seem, if you followed the precedent of other small townships, a reeve and four councillors would be sufficient rather than six. I don’t have that much feeling about it one way or the other, but does he have any reason why he wants this motion a reeve and six councillors or would he be happy with a reeve and four to be consistent with most of the townships in most other areas of the province?

Mr. Swart: I rise to speak on this perhaps because, unlike the first amendment, I am not a bit equivocal about it. I think there’s a very real principle here that whether it’s a first election, or a second, or a third, people have the right to decide who is going to be the most important politician in their municipality. I don’t care whether it is a regional government or whether it’s a local municipality; that principle should stand. I am constantly appalled when we are talking about the chairman of a regional municipality or, as in this case, that over there they don’t seem to be greatly concerned that the public should have the right to choose that person.

[4:45]

I’m sure the parliamentary assistant knows very well that the first person who is selected from this select group has an in for the next election. There is no question about that. If he serves there for two years, he gets to be known and it is going to be more difficult for one to replace him. It’s like the members of regional council. Once they get their foot in the door and get their vested interests set up, they have a greater chance of being re-elected to that position. The same thing is true here.

The comments of the parliamentary assistant on this, if I heard them correctly, which I think I did, are further arguments in support of the first amendment that there should be two municipalities. If I heard him correctly, he said that with two smaller municipalities there wouldn’t be the same need for the appointment because the people would know better those in their own community and could select their reeve in a local election.

The converse to that is that if it is a big municipality they won’t know the individual and therefore the public will not be able properly to select that person. That confirms the position put forward by this party that there is some merit in having the two smaller municipalities.

I have to say that when I heard about the petition that had come in, asking not only for one municipality but also that the reeve be selected, it raised some doubts in my mind about whether it was a petition which had been initiated locally by the people. Normally, the public doesn’t petition a Legislature in order not to have the opportunity to select the head of its municipality, even if it is the first time. It raised some questions in my mind about where that petition started and whether it was spontaneous within that area with that particular clause in there. The parliamentary assistant has now admitted at least that it wasn’t entirely spontaneous within that area.

I support this amendment. As to whether it should be four councillors or six, I don’t have strong feelings. I think four members of council would be adequate. But I strongly support the principle that the people should have the right to select by ballot the first person who is going to lead that municipality and who is a very important person, certainly even more so in the first term of office than in the second or third or fourth. My party and I will be supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very few remarks on this particular item. I have no hangups about whether or not the reeve is elected by the council or at large by the voters. As a matter of fact, my personal preference is that he be elected by the voters rather than chosen by the council after the election.

My main point in rising is to suggest to the member that if the other amendments pass and we do have two municipalities that he consider reducing the council to a reeve and four councillors rather than a reeve and six, simply because it is consistent with the other smaller municipalities in the riding of Parry Sound. We don’t know at this point whether or not all the amendments are going to carry, but this amendment obviously takes into consideration that the previous amendments are going to carry. I just wonder if the member would consider reducing the number from six to four so that it is consistent with the other municipalities.

Mr. Epp: If I may respond to that immediately, like the member for Parry Sound, I have no particular hangups on this point.

I would be glad to accept that amendment and make it four, rather than six.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That will depend on some person moving that when they see the developments on the other amendments. I don’t mean now, necessarily.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: If I could conclude my remarks, I would have to advise the member we would still have to oppose this amendment, because if it passed and the other ones didn’t we would have quite a mix-up. It is dovetailed into the other amendments already made, so we would have to oppose it, obviously; but I am only suggesting the four.

Mr. Epp: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. If no one disagrees with that, I will be glad to propose we make that four councillors rather than six.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If the other amendments pass when they are finally put, right.

At the present time I will put this amendment, unless there is some further discussion?

Mr. Isaacs: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Do I understand that whatever happens to the previous three amendments, you will permit an amendment to this amendment when we see the results of the stacked vote? What I am saying is if, perchance and unfortunately, we should lose the first three amendments, would you permit this amendment at that time to be amended to read 10 councillors, which is the number of councillors on the single municipality council?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am not so sure there has been any general understanding about that because, of course, now is the time to put the amendment. I think the suggestion made here by the member for Parry Sound is reasonable. Maybe we can get the consensus of the committee on this; it is getting a little complicated. Let’s hear what the parliamentary assistant has to say.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the amended motion now before us is for a reeve and four councillors, is that correct? That is accepted by everyone?

Because of the stacked vote, it would seem that if the votes previously stacked are not agreed to by the committee, it would be only fair at that time to allow the opposition to place a different amendment to section 4. The amendment placed to section 4 now is based on the fact that previous amendments will carry. If they do not carry later on when the stacked votes are taken, this amendment really would not be the one the opposition would wish to put. If it were one township, members wouldn’t want a reeve and four councillors for the larger townships.

If the amendments to sections 2 and 3 do not carry, I would then consent that the member for Waterloo North put a different amendment to section 4 at that time. I think we can do without debate. We would just put a different amendment and take a vote at that time.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am not so sure that answers the proposition of the member for Wentworth, the proposition of putting it back to 10.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, it does.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Ml right. Let me put this amendment now so we will know where we stand.

Mr. Epp has moved an amendment that section 4(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “The council of the township shall consist of a reeve to be elected by general vote and six councillors.”

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, just one point. I thought we had agreed it should be four councillors rather than six and I thought there was general consensus in the committee that it be four, rather than six councillors.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: But you are only going to do that, depending on what happens later on?

Mr. Epp: No, do that right now.

Mr. Bolan: You can do anything on consent.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The amendment should read: “The council of the township shall consist of a reeve to be elected by general vote and four councillors.”

That is your amendment now?

Mr. Epp: Yes. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to clarify the other point? That was, having four councillors here and six in the other municipalities, is a total of 10. That is what the government has proposed for one single municipality.

As the member for Wentworth pointed out, if our earlier amendments don’t pass we still want to have the opportunity of voting on the principle of having the reeve elected rather than appointed. That is a basic principle we want to have a vote on, if by chance the others didn’t pass. We don’t want to forgo that opportunity.

The parliamentary assistant has indicated he is prepared to permit us to put that particular vote as a separate vote, rather than forgo that opportunity.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would just like to indicate again I would consent that if the first two amendments carry, then we will put this to a reeve and four councillors. If the first two amendments do not carry, the motion will be a reeve and 10; is that correct? We consent to that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This must still be on the record, though.

Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 4 now reads as follows: “That subsections 1 and 2 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“1. The council of the township shall consist of a reeve to be elected by general vote and four councillors.”

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Bolan: There’s nothing left of the bill -- nothing that the government presented. Just the good stuff is in there now.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You guys will take the responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“The meetings of the council of a township shall be held at some place within the township or, where the council of the township by bylaw appoints, at some place within an adjoining municipality.”

Mr. Epp: As the bill now reads, Mr. Chairman, the council may meet in any area within the district and, as I pointed out on Friday, the district is very large. To try to keep the council meetings close to where the people reside, whether they are permanent or seasonal residents, we felt that it should be in the municipality. However, there is one small problem; rather than force the new municipalities to build new township halls and therefore have the facilities to house the council chambers and so forth, we felt it would probably be more logical and more economical to permit them to meet in the immediate area or in an adjacent municipality. We have proposed this amendment so that they can meet in the municipality or in an adjacent municipality.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment; it appears to us to be unduly restrictive. If the matter of place of meeting is a significant issue -- and I am aware that it is in parts of the district -- then we believe that should be an issue at the local election. The people of the area should decide whether they wish to elect councillors who want to hold their council meetings and conduct their council business within the municipality, or whether they do not regard that as of paramount importance and are prepared to allow their councillors to hold meetings anywhere in the district.

I want to suggest to the parliamentary assistant that, while we are not prepared to move an amendment, I am even concerned that the district itself may be too restrictive and there may be a good case for allowing the council of any of the municipalities to hold its meetings at some place near to, but not necessarily within, the district of Parry Sound. But, as I indicated, we do not want to get into that kind of amendment today. We are prepared to accept the wording that is in the bill with regard to holding meetings within the district of Parry Sound.

I want to point out to my colleague from Waterloo North one problem with his amendment; that is, if the previous amendments carry, then the township of Georgian Bay North Archipelago will not be able to hold its meetings in the town of Parry Sound. I regard that as particularly undesirable, because the council of the Georgian Bay North Archipelago may wish to hold its meetings in Parry Sound and, because Parry Sound is not adjacent to Georgian Bay North -- in fact, Carling is the municipality adjacent on the south -- then this amendment introduces that difficulty. We will not be supporting it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I am almost speechless. The member for Wentworth has said it all. I endorse everything he has said, except I think the members of one or two townships should be free to choose wherever in the district of Parry Sound they wish to meet. Certainly they are not going to go away off to the far northeast corner; they are going to find a convenient place that will probably be in the town of Parry Sound. We also will not support this amendment.

[5:00]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 10:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp moves that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“10. On and after January 1, 1980, a township shall be a planning area under the Planning Act, to be known as the Georgian Bay North Archipelago planning area and the Georgian Bay South Archipelago planning area respectively, and the township council shall be the planning board thereof, and where the township council meets in respect of matters pertaining to planning no separate meeting of the council as a planning board is required.”

Mr. Epp: This is consistent with what is in the bill right now except that if our earlier amendments to divide it into two municipalities rather than one carry, this gives provision for that. So it is just consistent with the amendments I introduced earlier.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member is quite correct. This just implements what happens previously and it would be, I think, the same vote and the same stacking.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

On sections 20 to 22 inclusive:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that part V of the bill be struck out and that schedule A of the bill be amended by striking out the first four paragraphs and substituting therefor:

“Firstly, part of the geographic township of Conger, commencing at the intersection of the northerly boundary of the township of Conger and the eastern limit of lot 10 in concession XII of the township of Conger;

“Thence southerly along the eastern limit of lot 10 in concession XII to IV, both inclusive, to the northerly limit of concession III in the township of Conger.”

Mr. Rotenberg: This implements what we indicated on Friday, and I felt that there was unanimous consent for this, that the bill now provides part of Conger township to go into the township of Foley.

As you will recall, the first bill we had a year ago had it going with the archipelago. Having had a series of meetings, it seemed there was sympathy and reasons for putting it in with Foley, but having decided to put it into Foley there was an overwhelming -- not unanimous but overwhelming -- public opinion that it should be in the archipelago.

On this side of the House, unless there is some very overriding reason why we should not, we listen to the vast majority of the people in these situations. In this case, as in the archipelago case, the majority of people indicated very strongly which way they want to go and we certainly are not going to put the people in Conger township into Foley against their will. That is why I have put forward this amendment which in effect puts the people back where they were in the original bill last summer, the cottagers in Conger going in with the new archipelago township.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, we certainly support the amendment, but in view of the fact it is now before us, I cannot help but comment as to how it got changed in the first place. If the members opposite are so interested in listening to overwhelming public opinion, why did they change it from Bill 205 to Bill 100, and what sort of public consultation went on there? Is it because of the fickleness of the ways of determining public opinion or was there some other reason for changing it back? I will allow the parliamentary assistant to dispense with an answer at this time.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have the question. When we met with the people after the first bill came out there was considerable objection to these people going with the archipelago. A number of people came to us and said, “Hey, we want to go with Foley.” Having investigated and not getting too much flak the other way, that seemed to be public opinion. We switched it back when we got far more people going the other way.

Frankly, yes, one cannot always judge public opinion. Sometimes it changes. But more often the people who think they are winning do not make a lot of noise until something changes. Maybe that is what happened in this part of Conger township. People who thought they were getting their way did not make too much noise at the meetings while those who objected made a lot of noise; there was a feeling that public opinion went the other way.

Having changed the bill, quite frankly we are willing to state here that maybe we did somewhat misjudge public opinion. But that certainly does not apply to the archipelago, where more than two thirds of the households have already signed a petition. That really is an indication of public opinion.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the parliamentary assistant, which one of the 23 Gallup polls applies to this section of the bill? I think that is very important information as far as this House is concerned. I would like to have it and I am sure every member would like to have it -- probably including some of the cabinet ministers here. So I wonder if he can elucidate on that and give us some information on that. Maybe Mr. Warner, who is in the gallery, could help him out.

Mr. Rotenberg: I cannot speak totally for the government. I am only the parliamentary assistant and I have only been in the job for three months. But all the briefings I have had, and all the information I have -- all the polls taken were taken publicly, to the best of my knowledge. There has been no Gallup poll taken in this area. Opinion was solicited in public and the results were recorded in public.

Mr. Epp: I was wondering whether the parliamentary assistant would check into this and if he has information whether he would make that public, to see which one of the Gallup polls affected this area.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I think the member is just being facetious about this whole thing. He knows very well what has gone on in this study. He has been up there; he spent three days there; he has talked to all the people; he knows there are people there who wanted to go to Foley township; he has talked to some of them. He is just being very facetious and I think he is trying to take advantage of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I do not like to disagree with anything my colleague says, but certainly it is going to be a long, long time before the member for Waterloo North can take advantage of me.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 23:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The bill will take some renumbering, which I assume the editors will do. Looking at part VI, section 23, shall that section be reported?

Sections 23 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

On schedule A:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Anything in regard to schedule A? I think Mr. Epp has an amendment for schedule A.

Mr. Epp: I’m going to require some guidance on your part with respect to schedule A, which, as you can see, is fairly lengthy. I’m not sure whether you want me to read it into the record or not, because it’s consistent with our earlier amendment.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No, I’m not going to suggest you read it either.

Mr. Epp: I’m not sure it would be necessary to read this whole schedule and then have another schedule read after that, schedule AA and so forth. All I can do is say that I’ve had legislative counsel help with respect to this schedule and some of the other amendments. It has been drawn up on that basis. I’m prepared to read it if you wish, but I’m not sure it’s necessary.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Let me hear what the parliamentary assistant has to say as to the accuracy of schedule A and schedule AA.

Mr. Rotenberg: I’m prepared to accept the accuracy, based on the word of the member opposite. Certainly I think we can adopt those schedules. If there are any minor corrections, I think all members of the House would agree they could be corrected before the bill is finalized. I’m prepared to go without the reading of these schedules.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think we’re agreed then with the parliamentary assistant, that if there are any corrections to be made if these amendments carry, they can be done in keeping with the wish of the committee and eventually the wish of the House.

Mr. Epp moves that schedule A of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor -- then follows a long metes and bounds description of what he proposes for the new schedule A.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Epp, you move a similar amendment to schedule AA?

Mr. Epp: Yes, I do.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do we agree that the result will be the same and that we will stack schedule AA?

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I’m looking at an amendment I have here from Mr. Epp, on part V, schedule E.

Mr. Epp: That won’t be necessary because we’ve already adopted the amendment the parliamentary assistant has made, which is the same amendment we have here. Although it’s drawn up a little differently, it has the same substance, so I will withdraw this.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: So you are withdrawing that.

Mr. Rotenberg: Before adopting the final schedules of the bill, could we agree that we will rise without adopting the final part of the bill and then return to committee of the whole at 5:45 for the stacked votes?

On motion by Hon. Mr. Maeck, the committee of the whole reported progress.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to highlight briefly some of the changes to the Municipal Act being proposed. The majority of these amendments were prompted by requests from municipalities or from municipal associations.

[5:15]

The requirement to produce financial statements will be extended to include every municipality, including counties, excepting Metropolitan Toronto, by deleting the reference “local” municipalities and referring to “every” municipality. A similar amendment has been prepared for Metropolitan Toronto.

Statements of surplus have been replaced with other more informative statements based on modified minimum disclosure requirements recommended by a committee of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

Section 236 will be amended to permit municipal councillors discretion to extend the deadline for taking the oath of allegiance and declaration of office by 30 days.

The amendment in section 4 of the bill is intended to make clear that where a committee of council conducts a hearing under section 242(b) of the Municipal Act, the procedures and requirements on hearings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, 1971, apply only where a statutory power of decision is being made. As members are aware, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act sets out a number of formal proceedings and requirements, for example, notice of hearing, cross-examination and the submission of written decisions to be followed by tribunals exercising a statutory power of decision. This change, therefore, is to make clear that these formal proceedings are not required in certain other less formal hearing proceedings under the Municipal Act which are not considered to involve the exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Municipalities will be exempted from seeking the assent of electors before undertaking agreement with the province for a loan under the Main Street Revitalization Program and the Ontario Downtown Revitalization Program. This amendment would enable a municipality to proceed directly with an application for OMB approval on the debt application without the necessity for an OMB order to dispense with the assent of the electors.

The existing reward section will be expanded to enable a municipality to provide rewards for information leading to the location or return of missing persons or property. This change was requested by the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The term of office for boards of management for special undertakings will be made the same as that of council or until a successor is appointed.

Municipal councils will be enabled to allow municipal sewer inspectors to enter into private commercial and industrial property but not a residence, without a search warrant, for the purpose of examining discharge into municipal sewers.

Another change will extend municipalities’ general power to prescribe penalties of not more than $1,000 under section 446 to contraventions of the bylaw prohibiting the leaving of unattended unlocked motor vehicles.

Ministerial approval for roads over 30 metres has been deleted, which is in line with our efforts to delete unnecessary ministerial approval.

Municipalities will be able to lease or licence the use of untravelled portions of highways in any area within the municipality. Presently, these powers are restricted to lands in areas zoned for industrial or commercial purposes only.

Provincial judges will be given the power to issue an order to restrain the repetition of a breach of a municipal bylaw where a conviction has been entered. This will facilitate the prevention of continued infraction by people who may regard the fine as a sort of a fee. This, I think, is more common in zoning bylaws where people pay their $50 fine and continue the infraction, but under this new amendment of the act a judge may issue an injunction upon conviction restraining the use contrary to the zoning bylaw.

Another amendment will be the minimum deemed tax bill will be raised from $6 to $10.

The minimum interest on tax arrears is to be raised to one and a quarter per cent a month from one per cent a month, and 15 per cent per annum from 12 per cent per annum, a rate comparable to commercial rates. This charge is intended to encourage ratepayers to pay their taxes on time and to avoid hardship for municipalities.

Municipalities will also be enabled to authorize taxpayers to pay their taxes into a credit union or caisse populaire in the same manner they are now authorized to make such payments to a bank or trust company.

Where a taxpayer claims to be unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty, municipalities will not be permitted, as they are now permitted, to delegate the hearing of such cases to the assessment review court.

The minister will be empowered to prescribe forms required under the Municipal Act in a bilingual format. The minister indicated this morning at the AMCTO conference that he intends to have these forms ready as soon as possible. Municipal council will decide on whether to use the English forms contained in the act or the bilingual forms prescribed by the minister. Any municipality opting for bilingual forms will be able to administer the oath of allegiance and declaration of office in French following the next municipal election, if they so decide. I emphasize that the choice will be up to each individual council.

These are the highlights of the many sections of the amendments to the Municipal Act and I commend the act to the Legislature.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill in principle. I regret, however, that we have not had very much time to consult with a lot of municipalities with respect to the particulars included in this bill. I do hope that in the future the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would give a little more time to the opposition parties to look at the various bills he brings in, particularly during the closing hours or the dying breaths of this Legislature before it recesses for the summer. This bill has been out for only about two weeks now. When members have other responsibilities, it’s very difficult sometimes to have as much consultation with municipalities with respect to new bills as they should have.

I would point out that in consulting with some municipalities we found they hadn’t even read the bill themselves. When I called them within the last few days about some of its aspects, they had to then look at it to see whether there were points they were sensitive about and whether they agreed with them or not. I hope the parliamentary assistant will convey that to the minister and to the ministry officials so that in future they can take that into consideration.

As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, there are some very important sections in this bill, particularly as it applies to sewer inspectors being able to inspect the discharge on a property. They can go on to private property, providing it’s commercial or industrial property, and take samples of that discharge. I think that’s an important change in that it will not be necessary now to get a warrant in order to do it once this bill receive royal assent, whereas it may have been in the past.

Another change is in the tax fines for motor vehicles, which will be increased from $10 to $100, minimum and maximum, from $1 and $10 respectively. The $1 and $10 amounts are somewhat less than minimum in the sense that it would hardly be worth processing the fine, even if there was a maximum charge.

The extension of the oath of allegiance and the declaration of office to French forms from English-only forms is a welcome change, and we wholeheartedly commend the government for making such a change in the particular bill before us.

I want to comment on one other matter. This has to do with the fact that the interest that municipalities will be able to charge will be increased from 12 per cent to 15 per cent a year, or by one quarter of one per cent per month, which is something that some municipalities have requested. We agree with that, as we do with the investment that municipalities can now take to credit unions and caisses populaires institutions as well as to banks and trust companies. We think this is a natural extension, one that we applaud, and one about which we sometimes wonder why it took so long in order to make these very necessary and very logical changes.

We agree with the bill, its conditions and provisions and we will support it.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that’s not exactly landmark legislation, but it’s certainly a compendium of things that’s going to make life a lot easier for a number of our municipalities.

I certainly concur with the comments of the member for Waterloo North about the way this legislation was introduced into the House and about the very short notice we and the municipalities have had to check that it really meets the needs they have. There are a number of sections I want to make comment on. We will be introducing an amendment to section 12.

I think it’s appropriate, in view of the fact that this is a compendium of a number of different subjects, that those subjects be dealt with as separate issues during this second reading of the bill rather than at the committee stage, and that should mean that the committee stage proceeds that much more smoothly and we can move to only those sections to which there are amendments.

Section 2 of this bill makes the publishing of financial statements compulsory for all municipalities. That’s certainly a step forward, but it removes the time limit or, at least, it permits the minister to impose the time limit rather than having the time limit that was specified in the Municipal Act at present.

While making the publishing requirement compulsory for all municipalities is obviously desirable, I think it’s unfortunate that the act itself does not, or will not when this is passed, specify the length of time that municipalities have for publishing their financial statements. I think those who are concerned about the financial well-being of their municipal council may well see this as a step backward rather than one forward.

The mailer of extending the time for taking the oath by 30 days is obviously a convenience, given that municipal elections are now held in November.

The clarification of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is very useful. I want to say to the minister and to the parliamentary assistant that we fully support that, because some councils have got themselves in some difficulties regarding the administration of that act and this is a step forward that will assist them greatly.

In section 5, the deletion of an assent of the electors in a planning matter is fairly minor but will certainly solve legal technicalities that have existed in the past.

The section 60 extension for permission for rewards is a good move. I want to remark particularly on the second part of that section, whicch clarifies the right of council to pull members off boards of management at any time. I think that’s a good move forward. That is saying very clearly that the council is in charge of the activities of the board of management. I think that’s a step in the right direction.

It’s something that should be extended to a number of the other boards and special purpose bodies that exist around this province for two reasons: one, because it makes it clear that it’s elected people who are in charge; and, two, and perhaps more important, because it will encourage councils to set up boards to manage special projects such as recreation centres, community centres, historic sites and that kind of thing, whereas at the present time they may be reluctant to set up what appears to be an autonomous special purpose body. I commend the minister for bringing that amendment forward.

With regard to the permission for inspectors to enter premises, except dwellings, to inspect sewers and the contents of sewers, that too is obviously a necessary step, though I regard it as rather unfortunate that there could be some duplication where municipalities are going to have to have inspectors who are qualified to deal with matters of effluent. I think it’s unfortunate that this is not something that is being dealt with by the province, or at least by a large district area rather than by, in some cases, lower-tier municipalities which are still fairly small municipalities.

So while we support the permission for inspectors to enter the premises, we regard it as unfortunate that this is a municipal responsibility and would be much happier if sewers and matters of the environment such as this were a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Philip: It used to be known as the affluent province. Now it’s known more as the effluent province.

Mr. Isaacs: Right. Allowing an open penalty for leaving keys in a vehicle is something that municipalities have been requesting for some time.

With regard to section 9, removing the restriction requiring ministerial approval for roads over a certain width is certainly a move forward, but I’d like the parliamentary assistant to explain why ministerial approval continues to be required under this bill from municipalities to set up narrower than usual roads, given that that matter is already covered by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and narrow roads are generally not eligible for subsidy. It seems to me that this provision is just a bit more red tape and a bit more bureaucracy that is redundant because things are already being satisfactorily handled elsewhere.

Leasing or licensing the use of untravelled parts of highways is something that municipalities are requesting and I think it’s worth trying as an experiment. I hope it does not turn into a nightmare where municipalities are extending the use of the untravelled portions of highways so much that sidewalks and parts of the untravelled portions that appear to be sidewalks become totally cluttered with vehicles.

[5:30]

The matter of courts issuing restraining orders on municipal bylaws is a big step forward, and I hope it is only a first step in permitting municipalities properly to enforce bylaws which at present are still causing a great number of problems.

On section 12, as I have indicated, we will be introducing an amendment because we feel the collection of taxes is best left to the municipal council to handle. We see no reason at all why the minister should have the right to set the amount of a minimum tax bill; this seems to us to be something perfectly within the ability of municipal councils, and our amendment will give municipal councils the right to determine the size of the smallest tax bill they issue.

On section 13, we have some concerns about raising interest on overdue taxes from one per cent to one and a quarter per cent per month. We are supporting this amendment because it is a permissive amendment which will allow municipalities to set the interest on overdue taxes at up to one and a quarter per cent per month. I can understand that that flexibility is needed.

I have to express some concern, though, when there may well be good cause for a person to have overdue taxes -- a cause which may be due to his personal financial circumstances or more likely may be due to some problems he is encountering with property taxes in general and with his relationship with the municipality over property taxes. When municipal councils are still able to borrow money at less than 12 per cent per annum, I really don’t see why we have to add a surcharge to that for citizens of the community who, for good reason, may have overdue taxes. So we will be supporting that section, but we do have some concerns about it.

On the second part of that section which allows the municipality to make use of credit unions, we have to say, “Hurray.” But we suggest to the parliamentary assistant and to the minister that we feel this isn’t going far enough. Municipalities ought to have the right to use credit unions for their entire financial services if they so wish. I recognize that is something which cannot be done by amendment to this act, because it would require quite a bit of liaison, discussion and cooperation with the credit unions themselves and then might require amendments to certain other acts.

On section 15, which requires that tax appeals on grounds of sickness or extreme poverty go to council rather than to the assessment review court, that certainly is a good move because the assessment review court is not an appropriate body for dealing with appeals on this basis. I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether his staff can advise him and us whether this section would permit the council to delegate that responsibility to a committee so that tax appeals on the grounds of sickness or extreme poverty could be heard by a committee rather than having to be heard by the whole council. I would like clarification on that.

On the final section, regarding the matter of English and French and bilingual forms, we are concerned simply that the discretion of the minister and of the council remain in that section. We find it difficult to understand first of all, why the minister has to prescribe the English and French versions of the forms and then the council may decide whether it wishes to use either or both. We would be a lot happier if the entire discretion rested with the municipality and the minister were required to provide copies of all forms which the Municipal Act specifies in both English and French versions so that municipalities could provide service to their residents in either English or French, as the municipal council sees appropriate, rather than having ministerial discretion intervene in there as well.

To sum up, yes, it is more than a housekeeping bill; it’s a bill that makes some of the functions of municipal government a lot easier. As my colleague has indicated, it’s most unfortunate that it was brought to us at this very late date when we haven’t had an opportunity to consult in the way we like. But I know it has been discussed very briefly by the PMLC and that consultation on each of these sections has taken place. I regret to say we will have to take the word of the minister on a couple of these things -- that municipalities are going to approve of our passage of these sections -- because they haven’t had proper chance to deal with them.

I think it’s unfortunate when we get to an omnibus bill such as this that the legitimate concerns municipal government brings to this government on a monthly basis don’t get dealt with as they come up. Instead of being dealt with expeditiously, apparently they are put away in a file drawer until there is a great big bundle of them and then we see an omnibus bill such as this brought out with rather short notice. I think that’s very unfortunate.

I would urge the government to respond more quickly to requests municipalities bring to it; say yes or no, and if the answer is yes, and in many eases hopefully it will be, then the government could bring forward pieces of legislation which deal with one specific change, rather than trying to deal with everything all at once -- everything being that which has accumulated for the past couple of years in many cases.

So those are our comments and we will be asking that this bill go to committee stage so we can introduce an amendment on section 15.

Mr. Hall: Just briefly, I wish to rise in support of section 13 of the bill. It’s been a particular problem in the town of Lincoln, which is part of the riding of Lincoln, to the extent it would appear that rather than pay taxes, established business firms have been using the municipality as a banker. Therefore the opportunity to charge interest on arrears will possibly ease the heavy tax rolls municipalities have been having to carry.

For example, at the end of 1978 Lincoln’s tax arrears were some 71 per cent of the portion of the whole levy it got to keep for the year -- having, of course, had to forward the regional and school board levies. One business alone owed the town some $143,000 in unpaid taxes and interest payments. While I don’t like to see higher interest payments, it certainly puts a municipality in an awkward position if they are going to be used as a bank by established business firms.

Other municipalities may have also faced the problem, but I do want to compliment the town of Lincoln for initiating some enthusiasm from other municipalities to support a change in the interest rates. I believe some 85 municipalities eventually responded to the minister to share in this concern over the problem.

For a small municipality such as Lincoln, facing a tax delinquency of $990,000 in 1978 is a substantial problem for them. It is unfortunate there’s no other way of doing it easily, but this amendment does seem to be necessary so I certainly support it.

Mr. Swart: I rise specifically to ask the mioister to deal with a point raised by my colleague from Wentworth. The question I want to put is why has the government not brought in a comprehensive amendment which would have permitted municipalities to deal with caisses populaires and credit unions exactly on the same basis now that they can deal with trust companies and banks? There was a concession made -- I believe it was last fall; it was some time last year -- when an amendment was made to the Municipal Act which we supported and which I believe everybody in the House supported. It permitted municipalities to make term deposits with credit unions. That was the only --

Mr. Speaker: I hope the honourable member will keep in mind he is to restrict his comments to those principles that are contained in the bill rather than those that have been left out.

Mr. Swart: I am, because we do have a section dealing with the right of municipalities to have certain financial dealings with credit unions, but in the instance of borrowing and in other fields of financial services, they may not deal in the same way with credit unions and caisse populaires. Credit unions and caisse populaires at this stage in our society, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, are major financial institutions, perhaps the largest in the nation. They are responsible financial institutions, democratic financial institutions, and it seems to me this should be recognized when we are bringing in bills that are dealing with the relationship between municipalities and these institutions. I would like the minister to elaborate as to why there is still that great restriction.

I, too, have some concern with a section of the act which empowers municipalities to increase their interest rates from 12 to 15 per cent, because it is permissive legislation. My party and I are going to support the bill in that regard.

There are many people within municipalities who, for one reason or another, are very much behind in their taxes at a time when we have high unemployment and through no fault of their own they may be going to have to pay these much higher interest rates. The municipality, unlike many lending institutions, has security; they know that ultimately they are going to get that money. There isn’t the same reason for them to charge the interest rate that exists in the commercial area of our society. Therefore, I would hope municipalities would use this permission very sparingly.

I recognize there is the other side of the coin, as mentioned by the member for Lincoln. There have been some commercial enterprises and some others which have difficulty in borrowing and have to pay very high interest rates, which have been using the municipality to some extent as a lending agency. I guess I just have to say this perhaps is a fair compromise. When it is permissive we will go along with it, but it can certainly hurt some people who have their own homes, are out of work, or for some other reason are unable to pay their taxes at this time.

The only other thing I want to mention is the legislation which removes the restriction on a municipality having to get approval for constructing highways or rights of way wider than the standard. I think it is very advisable to remove that restriction. As my colleague from Wentworth said, perhaps we should have gone the other way.

I can’t help but mention the anomaly of this legislation, which means the municipality can’t in fact have municipal roads which are under 69 feet, or 20 metres. They have to get special permission and yet within condominiums we have narrow streets. You can say, “Well, they are not public; they are private.” They are private, but many of them are going to be public at some time, I am afraid, and yet there is no control put over them. They are wholly inadequate, perhaps only 14 feet or something in width, and that is something at which the government should be taking a look.

As my colleague for Wentworth said, we are going to be supporting this bill, but I would like to have that one particular answer from the parliamentary assistant.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Maeck, the debate was adjourned.

House in committee of the whole.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of consideration of Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 2, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 47; nays 34.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 3, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 3(a), which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 3(a), as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 4, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 26; nays 55.

Section 5 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s amendment to section 10, which was agreed to on the same vote as the first vote.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Epp’s motion on schedule A and AA, which was agreed to on the same vote as the first vote.

Bill 100, as amended, reported.

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

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

June 18, 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRIBUTES TO HELEN ALLEN

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

EXCHANGE OF TAX INFORMATION

ENERGY CONSERVATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING: NANTICOKE CONTRACT

SKILLS TRAINING FOR WOMEN

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

ESSEX OPP DETACHMENT

HANDICAPPED PERSONS’ RIGHTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

CO-PAYMENT FEES

ANNEX PLAN

ASBESTOS WORKERS

LEARNING-DISABLED CHILDREN

NIAGARA OMB HEARINGS

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

CO-PAYMENT FEES

PETITION

GEORGIAN BAY ARCHIPELAGO

REPORT

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

MOTION

SITTINGS OF HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)