The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

SERVICE OF SUBPOENA

Mr. J. A. Taylor: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to call to the attention of the House that last Tuesday, June 19, I was served with a subpoena in my office by a representative of the legal firm of Lockwood and Bellmore to appear as a witness in a Supreme Court case involving the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I believe this to be a breach of my privileges as a member of this House, not only by a person invading my office in this building for such a purpose without your authority, Mr. Speaker, but, more important, I believe it to be a breach of the immunity provided by section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act which prohibits the arrest, detention or molestation for any cause or matter whatever of a civil nature during a session of the Legislature or during the 20 days following the session.

With respect to the question of whether or not the service of a subpoena constitutes molestation under section 38, I refer the House to May’s Parliamentary Practice, 19th edition, page 92 and following. It is not my intention at this time to move a motion to bring the offender before this House. I have no particular objection to acting as a witness in the matter at issue, but I would not like to be placed in the position of providing a precedent which would infringe the recognized privileges of this House and the members thereof.

Mr. Riddell: You have my full support.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I thought I would.

Mr. Riddell: I will even get on the procedural affairs committee if you want to bring the matter before it.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has quoted the privilege of immunity that is enjoyed by all members of this House under those circumstances, but the initiative rests with the member, should he choose to pursue it further. I assume he does not, and that the purpose of making his statement was just to appraise the House of what had taken place.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MANPOWER COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, the speech from the throne on March 6 stated that my ministry would be given the mandate to guide and co-ordinate the government’s manpower activities and that in recognition of this new responsibility the ministry would be renamed the Ministry of Labour and Manpower.

Much work has been done in the period since the throne speech to prepare for the assumption of this important assignment. A variety of manpower programs are now administered by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. As well, the work and activities of a number of other ministries have implications for the labour market. In the broadest sense, the assignment given to me in the speech from the throne is to see that all such programs and initiatives are designed, implemented and co-ordinated so as to ensure that our manpower needs are adequately addressed, now and in the future.

After a careful study of the problem, including the assessment of a number of organizational options, I am convinced that something other than a mere realignment of program responsibilities is required.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, a new government.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Accordingly, the government has approved the creation of an Ontario Manpower Commission to be chaired by a full-time manpower commissioner reporting through me to the cabinet. The commission will be empowered to oversee all of the manpower programs and activities of the government and, subject to cabinet concurrence, to make policy and operational decisions concerning those programs.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t you have enough civil servants to do that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You’re a nice young man, but just hang on.

Thus, while the commission will be located in the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, its functional mandate is not limited by ministerial boundaries.

Mr. Eakins: There goes your leadership down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This broad transministerial authority is, I believe, essential if we are to achieve the desired results.

Mr. Ruston: What’s this all about?

Mr. Kerrio: It’s time for a vacation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: One of the commission’s main and continuing tasks will be to evaluate all existing programs, measure their effectiveness in achieving results and, where appropriate, determine what changes in policy or delivery techniques may be desirable.

A second important function of the commission will be to mobilize community support and participation. I believe all the commissioners who have agreed to serve share the conviction that while central direction is important, successful manpower activities must be firmly rooted in the community. Through a variety of contacts across the province with organizations, associations and groups of interested persons, the commission will promote and encourage local and regional participation in training, counselling and placement, as well as the collection, analysis and communication of timely and accurate labour market data.

It will be obvious to members that the success of the commission will depend in large part upon the calibre of the permanent commissioner and his part-time associates. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to announce today that we have been successful in securing the services of one of the province’s outstanding industrialists to chair the commission. Mr. R. Donald Pollock, president and chief operating executive of Canada Wire and Cable Company Limited, who is present this morning in the Speaker’s gallery, has agreed to accept this challenging assignment for two years, commencing August 1.

Mr. Pollock is a native of Peterborough, and a graduate of Victoria College. He held important positions with Canadian General Electric and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company before joining Canada Wire and Cable in 1966. He is a member of the Science Council of Canada, and recently chaired a labour-management sector task team established by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism to analyse the electrical and electronics industry in Ontario.

Over the past few months I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Pollock and other representatives of industry, labour and the educational community in an informal advisory group dealing with the important manpower issues addressed at the Skills for Jobs conference held in June 1978.

I am therefore in a position to say that we have, as chairman, an unusually dedicated, talented and determined individual who believes, as I do, that we must do everything in our power to ensure that our labour force is properly trained and productively employed so as to achieve the growth and prosperity in the 1980s to which we all aspire.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the government’s job.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We also share the view that our prospects for success depend in large measure upon the co-operative involvement of labour, management and the educational community in this important and difficult endeavour. Accordingly, the commission which Mr. Pollock will chair will comprise persons from the constituencies which I have mentioned who are acknowledged to have wide experience in the manpower field.

Mr. S. Smith: Another commission.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am pleased to advise the House that the following individuals have agreed to serve as commissioners: Mr. Greg Murtagh, director of education, Ontario Federation of Labour; Mr. Peter Dawson, training specialist, the Procter and Gamble Company of Canada Limited; Mary Eady, director, women’s bureau, Canadian Labour Congress; and Kenneth Hunter, president, Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology. The secretariat of the commission will be headed by John Kinley of my ministry, who has had broad experience in manpower matters, both in government and in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to refer to a related initiative concerning manpower. It is recognized, I believe, that an essential precondition to effective manpower planning is accurate knowledge of industry’s needs. We hear much about the shortage of skilled labour, but we need to have the best possible information about where shortages are likely to occur in the near, mid- and longer term so the appropriate training, guidance and placement planning decisions can be made. This in turn requires that industry share with us their demand forecasts.

Due in large part to Mr. Pollock’s determined efforts, a comprehensive labour market information survey is about to be launched. The survey was designed by the labour market information unit in my ministry and is being distributed under the sponsorship of Mr. Pollock and four Ontario industrialists: Gerald Elford, president of Upper Canada Manufacturing Limited; Chester Fisher, executive vice-president, Fisher Gauge Limited; Gerald Heffernan, president, Co-Steel International Limited; and Sheldon Lush, chairman and chief executive officer, Supreme Aluminum Industries Limited.

The wide distribution of the survey, the first of its kind in Ontario, is made possible as a result of the co-operation of the Ontario division of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, all of whose members will be canvassed.

I believe the support by Ontario employers and associations of this essential information-gathering endeavour is an encouraging example of the widespread and genuine concern about manpower mailers and the co-operative spirit in which the community is prepared to address them. I think this co-operation augurs well for the work of the new commission.

I am sure that all members join with me in expressing the hope and conviction that the Ontario Manpower Commission will make a significant contribution to one of our most urgent social and economic issues.

[10:15]

CEMETERIES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Legislature the fact that my ministry intends to amend the Cemeteries Act in the fall session. To ensure the opportunity for full consultation and consideration by all parties involved, a discussion draft will be sent to them for comment over the summer.

The first cemeteries legislation was passed in 1850 and has been revised from time to time since then. However, there have been no revisions for the past 11 years, in spite of the fact that business operations have changed substantially in that time. As part of the process of preparing the proposed bill we have held discussions with those directly involved, and I believe it will reflect the changes requested by the Ontario Association of Cemeteries.

We have also met with the joint steering committee on native affairs and have reached agreement in principle with them.

The discussion proposal clarifies the responsibilities of the municipalities with regard to the establishment and enlargement of cemeteries and related structures. This will enable municipalities to deal with cemeteries as an integral part of their land-use planning.

This provision is consistent as well with the Ontario government policy of deregulation.

By eliminating the need to pass trust fund accounts in surrogate courts, the act provides financial relief to the older, smaller cemeteries. Accounts will now be filed with the cemeteries branch of my ministry. I want to emphasize, however, that we have maintained the right of the family to ask for, and to receive, information about those accounts.

The cemeteries branch will also provide a watchdog function over any commercial operations regarding cemeteries in order to ensure that they operate in accordance with the law.

An expanded licensing provision is also included which would require all cemeteries in Ontario to be licensed. However, we intend to proclaim this section only if events so demand.

My staff has spent many months meeting with the organizations and people directly affected, and I am confident the discussion bill which will be sent out within the next few weeks will reflect the concerns of all involved. I would ask that comments be directed to the cemeteries branch of my ministry by the end of August in order that we may proceed with the necessary legislation as soon as the House resumes this fall.

FIREFIGHTING BY INMATES

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the Ministry of Correctional Services is assembling an emergency team of inmates to assist the Ministry of Natural Resources with firefighters duties in northern Ontario, should their services be required.

Yesterday, plans had progressed to the point where upwards of 60 inmates were to be deployed to the fire fronts from correctional institutions in Kenora, Thunder Bay and Monteith. Although rain within the last 12 hours has alleviated the immediate need, the emergency inmate team remains on standby and will respond within a couple of hours if necessary.

This service to the people of Ontario will be available throughout the fire season. If more manpower is required, other jails and correctional centres will provide help.

The inmates will assist with cleanup and other such duties as assigned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and will, of course, be under the custodial supervision of correctional officers. The emergency team will remain on duty for as long as there is a need.

The participating inmates will be volunteers. They are being carefully screened to ensure they pose no threat to community safety.

This response to a provincial emergency is in keeping with our philosophy of encouraging inmates to accept responsibility for civic duty. Last year, with the encouragement of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), inmates provided 177,600 hours of community work to the citizens of Ontario. More than 1,300 inmate man-hours were spent clearing flooded land in Dover township this spring.

We do not believe inmates should sit idly in jail, at the taxpayers’ expense, when there are so many opportunities for them to make repayment to society through useful community service. Work of this nature helps to instill a sense of responsibility. Time is spent positively and inmates learn firsthand that there are many people worse off than they are. The remedial benefits speak for themselves.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANPOWER POLICY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour stemming from the statement he just made to the House. Does he recall that on October 28, 1974, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development stood and said the following, announcing the creation of a manpower secretariat: “The manpower secretariat is an outgrowth of the work within my secretariat which indicated the need for closer liaison among ministries regarding manpower policy. Some time ago, it became evident that there are special problems in co-ordinating requirements for skills with the effort of our education ministries and with the responsiveness of the labour market to changing circumstances.”

These are very familiar words indeed, since we have just heard them again. Will the minister therefore admit that this secretariat, which still exists in this government and which was set up five years ago to do the necessary job, has been an abject failure? Will he admit that his statement today of a new, outside commission is an indication of a recognition of that failure? If he agrees with me, would he tell us whether he has analysed the reasons for the failure of the existing manpower secretariat and what assurance he has that the new commission will do a better job?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the statement the member referred to was made in 1974 there was an honest belief that those steps being proposed would indeed solve the problems then perceived. Clearly, in our view they have not progressed as rapidly as one would have hoped and it was felt that a new modality, a new concept, was required.

As to why we chose the suggestion of a manpower commission, I hope the member will agree there was a great variety of choices. All the other choices involved moving parts or the whole of programs into the Ministry of Labour. Frankly, it was my feeling we would spend so much time realigning programs and transferring and adjusting things that again there would be delays in getting down to dealing with the problem. I thought we would be far better off to approach it with the concept of a manpower commission headed by people who are separate and distinct from government und who have a definite, committed interest in the problem which goes beyond the interest of any of us, because they are involved in it and they know the specific needs.

It is my feeling that this semi-independent body, with the direct access it will have through me to the Executive Council, will be very influential in policy matters and in program matters. I see this as the correct approach and I trust members will agree with me.

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask two things? First of all, will the manpower co-ordinating committee secretariat, under the executive coordination of Mr. J. H. Kinley and with a number of other employees, be immediately disbanded? According to what the minister said, it obviously has been a disappointment. Furthermore, did the government not consult with people in labour and industry and so on during the past five years? If it did consult with these people, why were no results produced so that government has to start all over again by handing the job over to a new commission?

The basic question is, does the minister not recognize that this has been a serious failure on the part of the government and that handing the matter over to a new commission now, especially since rumour has it that the reason the old one failed was lack of interministerial co-operation, should have been preceded by an analysis of the existing failures?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With regard to the manpower secretariat, as I have already indicated in my statement that secretariat and Mr. Kinley will remain in the Ministry of Labour but will serve the manpower commissioner and the commission. The Ontario manpower coordinating committee secretariat as a body per se will be dissolved. Frankly, I do not say it was a failure; I just say it was not acting rapidly enough and we were not achieving the results I see a commission such as this being able to achieve. I can’t say it was a failure.

Mr. S. Smith: Five years and no results.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member well knows the problems and the complexity of the problems related in gathering the information and in getting an effective program going. I am convinced the approach we are taking is the correct one.

Mr. S. Smith: Will you take five years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let’s hope the member is around to find out.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: One cannot help suspecting the government has done the minimum possible to carry out the promise made in the throne speech about turning this ministry into the Ministry of Labour and Manpower. Can the minister say what specific powers this new manpower commission or the minister himself will have if the community colleges cannot afford to expand manpower training because of shortages of funds? What specific powers will the new manpower commission have when high schools cannot offer up-to-date training because they can’t afford new equipment? What specific powers will this new organization have if the selective placement service of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism is looking for skilled workers abroad rather than putting pressure on employers to make sure they train them here in this province? What specific powers will this ministry have, now that it is the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, if what is required is additional funding to ensure we get the skilled workers we need, but that funding is not available because of the cutback policy of this government?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the member’s concern about the effectiveness of a commission such as this. I can only reaffirm my own conviction that this is the right approach and will be the most successful approach that could have been taken by government.

As to the terms of reference, they are outlined partially in the statement I have given. They will oversee all of the manpower programs and activities of the government and, subject to cabinet concurrence, make policy and operational decisions concerning those programs. In other words, they will have an almost direct connection to the Executive Council so that the council can directly respond to their recommendation.

That is a pretty important linkage and an important commitment by the government regarding its concern on the manpower issue.

Mr. S. Smith: You’re appointing Kinley all over again.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us what authority will this new commissioner and this new commission have to direct -- and I specifically choose that word -- the post-secondary institutions and the adult training institutions in this province to carry out certain mandates?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the very matters the commission will have incredible input into. Naturally the first rule will be to see if the changes the commission feels are warranted can be achieved by negotiation. But the importance of the terms of reference is that if there is a failure of co-operation in any way, then there is direct access to the cabinet so that there can be a cabinet direction as to the direction that is to be taken. I think that is an important initiative.

Mr. S. Smith: You had it before.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, why would the minister, which is quite uncharacteristic of him, want us to agree to a reorganization of his ministry, when the first initiative he takes is to shuffle off the very responsibility we have been asked to confer upon him?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered that in one of my previous responses. There were a variety of options presented to us, as I am sure the member can appreciate.

Mr. Renwick: Why did you choose the wrong one?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: One option was a total realignment of programs bringing them under the Ministry of Labour. The second option was partial realignment of some programs.

Mr. Mackenzie: There is no realignment.

Mr. McClellan: It’s going to be chaos as usual.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Frankly, we felt and I felt there was too much time spent in the realignment process and not enough time spent dealing with the issue. The programs are in place. They can be utilized while they are still in the place they are, and time need not be taken in the realignment process to achieve the goals we had in mind.

DISCOUNT PRACTICES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the food price inquiry. It has probably come to the minister’s attention that Mr. Hull is now taking a slightly more aggressive line in his questioning, but he has been refused information with regard to the discounting and kickback practices by the president of Loblaws, Mr. Nichol.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wanted him fired.

Mr. S. Smith: It is amazing how it got him going. He was alerted for the first time in this commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You wanted him fired.

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. S. Smith: If the Premier insists on interjecting, I feel I should at least respond to these interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: It is hard to ignore the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s true. That’s something you should learn.

Mr. S. Smith: I will attempt to. I will do my best.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s not good enough.

Mr. S. Smith: I can assure the Premier that this is a domestic matter. He is allowed to express an opinion on this matter.

Since Mr. Nichol refuses to give this information, does the minister not agree it is time the government expressed a view, before this matter goes any further, that all the information pertinent to the discounting practices, the size of the kickbacks and so on, must be obtained by the commission with subpoena, examining documents and with all means necessary to do so and must be made public? Isn’t it time to express that view?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MacDonald: Just answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: I will answer the question. You just be quiet.

Mr. Breaugh: We are just trying to help you.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[10:30]

Hon. W. Newman: Both parties opposite wanted a royal commission and they have got a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition wanted the lawyer fired the other day. The lawyer has come on very strong on Loblaws. I don’t know how lawyers operate. I’m not a lawyer, and I never know how they operate, but they do have strategies, I guess, on how they work and how they do things.

If the honourable member is so concerned -- and I understand he is going to make a presentation -- he has the right to ask to have legal counsel down there. Why does he not have his own people there asking some questions if he is really showing concern about it? He could have one of his legal people down there. He just has to go down and ask. All he wants to do is talk. The honourable member has certain rights if he wants to use them and not for political purposes.

The judge has the right and has the power under the order in council over a wide range of things that he can do. It’s up to him to decide what he is going to do, and I’m not going to tell the royal commission how they must conduct themselves.

Mr. S. Smith: Since it is perfectly evident that they don’t have a leg to stand on in their contention that these discount matters must be kept confidential for the sake of the fear of competitive information being given out, why doesn’t the minister, if he has any interest at all in the success of this commission -- which I seriously doubt -- at least express the opinion and the view, albeit that the judge will make the final decision, that the commission should take every means possible, including subpoena, to obtain the information on the kickback practices and, furthermore, to make it public? Express a view; have some courage.

Hon. W. Newman: The honourable member is asking me to tell the judge what to do. That’s exactly what he is doing; he is asking me to tell the judge what to do. The judge knows how to get the facts; he knows the way to get them. In the final analysis, when this commission is finished, I think they will have all the facts and figures they want and need.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a twofold supplementary for the minister. What is the point of the minister asking either the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or anybody else to have a counsel down there when the Ontario Federation of Agriculture counsel is cut off half the time when he tries to pursue questions? He is cut off by Rodney Hull. That’s my first question.

Secondly, when Loblaws president Nichol came before the standing committee on resources development last year and he was asked questions on discounts, he answered them; in fact, he was very open and was going to tell us everything in a very grandiloquent way. Isn’t his refusal to give that information now absolute stonewalling of the operation? If the commission isn’t willing to do something about the stonewalling, will the minister not do something?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, taking these questions in reverse order: As far as Mr. Nichol or anyone else refusing to give information is concerned, I understand there was some information given by him at the hearing the other day, off the top of his head.

Mr. MacDonald: Why was it off the top of his head?

Hon. W. Newman: A document was filed, which I understand has been checked out by the commission. We have a legal counsel sitting at the commission also asking some questions. We are very interested in what goes on. As far as I am concerned, we want to make sure that everything is done correctly, but I refuse to tell the judge and the counsel what to do.

To answer the first part of the honourable member’s question regarding the legal counsel for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, if the member had the integrity or sent one of his people down to watch those hearings, he would know the reason counsel gets cut off is that he is out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the minister, the man who is supposed to be standing up or the farmers and the consumers, saying to this House that he feels that he is legally precluded from expressing a view on the matter? We’re not saying he should tell the judge what to do. Does he say he’s legally precluded from expressing a view on the matter? If not, why doesn’t he have the courage to express a view on the matter?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that isn’t what I said at all. I said a royal commission has been appointed and is looking into the matter. I am as interested in it as the member is or anybody else is --

Mr. MacDonald: Your procedures are phoney.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and if he would stop trying to make politics out of it, as he did the other day, it would let them get on with their job.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the fact the judges’ or commissioners’ reports from past commissions have been rather predictable, would the minister not consider cancelling this inquiry to stop wasting more public funds?

An hon. member: It is a copout the way you are doing it.

Mr. Cassidy: Either make it work or don’t do it at all.

Mr. S. Smith: Express a view.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say in answer to the members over there is, they asked for it, and now they want to cancel it. They never know where they are going.

Mr. MacDonald: Do you know where you are going?

Mr. Foulds: Nowhere.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Cassidy: Now that it is clear the Ontario Manpower Commission will work through other ministries rather than working on its own, Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education regarding the very sharp decline in enrolments in a number of important technical subjects over the course of the last couple of years in the high schools of the province.

Can the minister explain why it is that there has been a 15 per cent drop in grade nine and 10 students in drafting over the course of the years 1976 to 1978? That is a drop of about 6,500 students. Since machinists are so vital in the province, can she explain why there has been a drop of nine per cent, or about 3,300 students, in machine shop practice in those early years of high school; since the aircraft industry is important, why there has been a drop of 67 per cent, or 360 students, in students taking courses in aircraft; or why there has been a drop of 1,800 students, or 22.5 per cent, in the grade nine and 10 students taking automobile servicing in order to start to become mechanics?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there is an interest in the skills-related area which is evinced by the students who graduate from secondary schools in their applications to community colleges.

I would remind the honourable member that there has been a significant drop in the numbers of students attending secondary school. I am also aware that in some specific schools there has been a problem with the scheduling of the curriculum in a way that makes it possible for the students to participate at the kind of level that would be appropriate in certain of the technical areas.

I have been doing my best over the past 10 months to talk to headmasters, to school boards and to those responsible for the development of curriculum schedules, to modify the kind of programming that is done in order to ensure the appropriate arrangements are made to permit the students a kind of educational program that will encourage them to become involved in those kinds of subjects the honourable member is talking about.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is students were involved in these courses two years ago, but there are far fewer of them in these courses today, particularly when the overall decline in secondary school enrolments between 1976 and 1978 was only one quarter of one per cent? Will the minister not agree that her ministry should be doing a great deal now to stimulate interest and involvement by students in these technical subjects in order that we have a supply of skilled manpower to fill Ontario’s industrial needs over the course of the 1980s?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am just delighted to hear the honourable leader of the third party endorse the activity I have been actively involved in for the last six months.

Mr. Martel: You are so far behind the times.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Given that one of the main reasons a lot of students are not taking these programs is that they have been told by the secondary school staff that they cannot guarantee they will be able to continue the program for the full four or five years, is the minister prepared to make any provisions to assist school boards to guarantee students that if they start a program they are going to be able to finish it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is the role of the school board to co-operate in this function, and it has been my role over the last several months to ensure the school hoards are aware of the needs to ensure continuity of the programs and to attempt to assist them in making that assurance by providing some extra assistance in the area of technical education in the budget allocations for school boards this year. I have also been involved in many discussions with the technical directors, with technical teachers and with the teachers’ federation, which is responsible for representing them, to alert them to the need for an emphasis on this kind of educational program which equals the kind of emphasis given to academic programs which have been traditional within the school system.

We are trying our best to ensure that the students who want to become involved in this kind of program will have that opportunity and, as a result, we have introduced eight new programs which will maintain continuity, not only within the secondary school program but in the post-secondary program as well, and we intend to expand that program within the next several months.

Mr. Bradley: Same old story.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it isn’t.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If I can bring the minister’s rhetoric down to specifics, what has the Ministry of Education done to restore the industrial arts program at the Chapleau High School, a matter I raised in this Legislature about six or seven weeks ago, in order that students in that particular isolated area of northern Ontario can have access to any form of technical courses at all? What has the Ministry of Education done in the case of a large number of technical high schools or composite high schools across the province, where the equipment they are using is becoming more and more out of date compared with what is used in industry outside and the school boards cannot afford to get decent equipment because of the cutbacks?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the specific problem of the Chapleau High School is being investigated by the northern regional office, and I presume that report will be coming to me in a very few days.

The problem the member raises regarding the kind of equipment that is present within the secondary school system is one we have attempted to make at least a step towards resolving by the additional funds which were provided for that purpose this year, and it is our intention to move further in succeeding years in that area.

There is also intensive activity taking place in a number of communities in the area of co-operative educational programs which will ensure that the equipment the students will be taught upon is the latest of equipment which most school boards could not possibly keep up with in any kind of a very generous delivery of funds to the school system.

The community colleges have the same kinds of problems. It is not possible to ensure that the latest generation of specific equipment is present within the educational institution. It is more important to make certain that the kind of equipment which provides the basic and generalist knowledge for the student is there, that it is in good condition and that the newer and more specialized equipment is available to the students through co-operative education programs with the co-operation of employers within the community. That is one of the directions in which we are working.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Would the minister justify the 50-50 ratio under which dining lounges such as Willy’s Wine Bar, in my riding of Ottawa Centre, have to sell as much food as liquor in each month in view of the recent massive increases in the price of wine? Isn’t a result of those massive increases in the price of wine that an establishment like Willy’s Wine Bar has no choice but to inflate the price of food to maintain the ministry’s ratios?

Mr. Peterson: They are putting the price of food up. What are you worried about?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the honourable member -- and I would have thought he would have known this -- that the price of food is rising twice as fast as the price of wine. So, a 50-50 ratio, in terms of selling food, actually is a break.

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you bring them down?

Mr. Cassidy: Since Willy’s Wine Bar opened up in November 1978, I think it is news to everyone in this House that the price of food has gone up as quickly as the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario wine prices over the course of those six months.

Is the minister aware that this particular licensee, who is now required to appear before the liquor licence board on July 26 here in Toronto, was told by a board inspector, “Things will go much better for you in Toronto if you do not talk to the press”? Will the minister step in to stop this kind of harassment and ensure that a small business that is trying to get established can get a decent break?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to make it extremely explicit that, number one, I think it would be highly improper, and I would never interfere with a proceeding of the liquor licence board.

Mr. MacDonald: What about your inspectors?

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Will the member please calm himself down?

I am deeply disturbed by that type of allegation. I will look into the matter. At no time will I, as the minister responsible to this House for the liquor licence board, or any other part of my ministry, countenance an attempt at silencing a person, a small business or a corporation, from expressing free comment or from stating a case to the public in any way.

Mr. Swart: Will you examine their political affiliation?

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that an establishment like Vine’s Wine Bar in Toronto can advertise itself as being “truly reminiscent of a London wine bar”? -- that’s an established wine bar -- but an establishment like Willy’s in Ottawa, which has been trying to get off the ground and is running into great difficulties with the ministry, should have its advertisements in the local press monitored on a regular basis by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario inspectors and be sent letters telling the establishment it is not to use copy references to “a wine bar” and “a downstairs bar”?

Is it normal that high-priced inspectors of the LLBO should be monitoring the local press to see whether each apostrophe in each word of every advertisement is going to be correctly used or not?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The leader of the New Democratic Party knows perfectly well that one of the jurisdictions of the liquor licence board is control over advertising -- not just advertising of the product but signs, public advertisements and so on.

About this wine place in Toronto the member speaks of in comparison with some wine bar in London, England, I don’t know. I’ve never been in a wine bar. That must have been one that escaped me. I really don’t know what the member is talking about. If he is complaining that the place in Ottawa is being harassed, I will look into it. But I will tell the member there are certain places in Ontario whose ads the minister monitors. They know what they can put in an advertisement; they know what they are specifically forbidden to put in an advertisement, and they are going to conform to the law.

Perhaps the leader of the third party is asking me to make a special dispensation for the Ottawa wine bar because it can not sell enough food. When it made an application -- if I understand the member correctly, it opened last year -- it was cautioned it might lose its licence if it did not conform to the 50-50 food ratio. Now, if I understand correctly, it says that because of the increase in the price of wine it cannot sell enough food. However, the price of food has been going up at twice the rate of alcohol price increases in the last year, and they are going to have to conform to the law.

[Later (11:22):]

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stated the price of food had gone up at twice the rate of the price of wine. The price of food -- I have checked the figures -- has gone up by 17 per cent in the past year, but we were unable yesterday to get any index on the increase in the price of wine from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. I cannot see how the minister can make that claim, particularly when many wines doubled in price on April 30 of this year.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, from the time of the licensing of that establishment I will stand by the statement I made. It was licensed last year when there was a freeze on the price of wine. It operated for quite a considerable period of time with wine subsidized by the taxpayers of the province because of that fact. It is a well-known fact how much the price of food has gone up, particularly institutional food, because of the difficulty in obtaining fresh produce during the wintertime.

If the member wants statistics, his informant should give me her order. I want to know what wine she is buying. I presume she feels too good to buy Ontario wine. I could give her that off the top of my head. If she will provide me with a list of the particular brands of wines she has bought, I will send her a letter.

[Reverting (10:43):]

REVIEW OF BILL 100

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education arising out of the strike of secondary school teachers in Haldimand county in this school year. The students were out of school for a two-month period, and it came to light that the students did not have rights with regard to their education.

Can the minister tell us when she is going to make public the results of the long internal review of Bill 100?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the internal review of Bill 100 is now almost complete. I have discussed the potential activity following the internal review with members of the Council of School Trustees Associations, the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and the Council of Home and School Federations of Ontario. It is possible we shall be establishing a multipartite external committee to examine the findings of Bill 100 results over the last several years to try to determine whether there should be major or even minor modifications of the act.

I should like to assure the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) that one of the problems related to the difficulty he has talked about, the dispute between the teachers and the board in that area, had its roots in a very long-standing attitude of confrontation without resolution of problems. The Education Relations Commission has informed both parties in this area that it would be delighted to participate in a preventive mediation activity, now that the strike is settled, to ensure that all those problems which seemed to be lighting the brush fires that caused the dispute to degenerate into a strike could be removed before the next set of negotiations begins. I am very hopeful that that activity will take place.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is the minister reviewing the responsibilities of the Education Relations Commission with regard to the rights of the students? Will there be a closer connection there so that the rights will be protected?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is a necessary activity in the review of Bill 100.

Mr. S. Smith: The government can’t agree on human rights.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister how she can justify touring around the province with this internal report and not take it upon herself to table this report in the Legislature, where it belongs? She has discussed it with everybody else. Why can’t she table it in the Legislature?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the report with the other parties that I mentioned. I discussed with them the possibility of the establishment of a multipartite external committee to examine the report when it is ready. It is not as yet ready.

Mr. S. Smith: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and you cannot agree.

CHEESE PRODUCTION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- if he will stall his departure for a minute -- about the cheese industry in the province of Ontario. Is he aware of just how serious the decline in that industry is, in particular in cheddar cheese? In the past 25 years Ontario’s share of Canadian production has dropped from 93 per cent to 33 per cent and there are now only about 65 cheese factories left in Ontario, compared with about 1,200 at the turn of the century. Does the minister agree that this is extremely serious, both in terms of the lost job opportunities in that industrial sector and in the very serious trade deficit of almost $60 million last year?

Mr. Riddell: Pull out one of your old speeches.

Mr. Nixon: Blame the feds.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question, because quite obviously the member has been around here for a few years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Too long.

Hon. W. Newman: Ever since I have been Minister of Agriculture and Food, we have seen this problem coming because of the industrial milk program across Canada and the allocation of industrial milk to the province of Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Federal government stuff.

Hon. W. Newman: Sure it is; I’m not changing my mind just because the government has done it. I know they will know how to handle it.

Mr. S. Smith: What have they done so far?

Mr. Swart: You will eat those words.

Hon. W. Newman: Coming back to cheddar cheese, I am very concerned about the industrial milk supply to the province of Ontario which goes to cheese production. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board takes the industrial milk that we have allocated to the province and puts it out on various kinds of cheese. For instance, for specialty cheese there is no quota, but for cheddar cheese they do have to have a quota on it.

We have had discussions with the Milk Marketing Board over a period of time. I have been fighting for more market share quota for this province for two and a half years because I feel we need it here in this province. We don’t want to be greedy and take it away from everybody else, but we want our fair share. I have said I want a total dairy industry in this province, and I do not want the cheddar cheese industry to be out of business.

I have even asked for credit on MSQ from the government of Canada -- that is market share quota, in case the member doesn’t know. We can export cheddar cheese, we’ve got markets for it from this province, and yet we can’t get the milk allocated to us from Ottawa to do it.

Mr. Laughren: And there you sit.

Hon. W. Newman: Sit? No.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member knows nothing about it.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; Now that we have a new Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, has the minister made any effort to contact him to recommend to him that we are going to have to take some of Quebec’s allocation and some of Alberta’s allocation away from them in order to give it to Ontario so that we can produce the cheese to meet the market that he says there is for it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the new Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, and I know that he knows the problem. I have discussed it many times in advance of his taking over, because I knew he was going to take over. So he knows full well the problem. He knows -- at least I think he knows -- there has to be a better distribution of MSQ when there is one province not using its total allocation. I’m not picking on any one of our sister provinces, but I know and the member knows which one it is.

Mr. Bradley: But having said that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We know which one it is.

Hon. W. Newman: When one province can ship all the milk it wants to ship and doesn’t totally utilize its quotas, it’s time there was some adjustment in the system. They should lose some of that quota if they’re not going to utilize it, and give it to someone who can utilize it.

Here in Ontario we have gone through a very difficult time as far as the cheddar cheese people are concerned.

Mr. Nixon: We lost ours because we didn’t utilize it. That’s how we lost it.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; Have the minister and his officials done any work at all on the potentially increased markets, particularly for cheddar cheese, with the European Economic Community as a result of the GATT negotiations which should give us increased opportunities for exports of cheddar cheese and which would enable us to easily wipe out the deficit we now face?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it’s quite obvious the member doesn’t know the price of cheddar cheese in the European Economic Community, what it would sell for and the sort of tariff barriers in the agricultural community over there. If the member doesn’t understand that, I’ll explain it to him.

Mr. Laughren: I know a lot more about that than you do.

Hon. W. Newman: We could send a boatload of cheese over to the EEC market tomorrow and before that boatload would land in the EEC, they could have moved the tariff up to the point where it was almost impossible to deal with.

Mr. Laughren: As a result of GATT.

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute. After the GATT negotiations they will allow so many million pounds in --

Mr. Breaugh: Why do you give up so easily?

Hon. W. Newman: -- which we will have no trouble fulfilling at all.

Mr. Breaugh: Why don’t you fight for it?

Hon. W. Newman: We’ll have no trouble fulfilling that quota -- and more, if they would let us do it.

Mr. Laughren: We don’t have the factories.

Hon. W. Newman: We don’t have them in the province of Ontario because we don’t have the milk. The member knows where it is. It comes from Canada. It has to come from Canada.

Mr. Laughren: And you sit there. What are you going to do about it?

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a supplementary? I wonder if he could tell us, in his discussions with the new federal minister, what comments the new federal minister made as to what he was going to do to correct the problem?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there is a federal-provincial conference which will be held in about three weeks’ time. There also is a national supply and management committee working right now looking at the total picture of national supply and management of industrial milk. If the member reads Farm and Country, he’ll see the Conservative policy, and I’m quite sure he will carry it out.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. I wonder if I could ask him if he would have his officials investigate the shortage of criminal court facilities in the city of Belleville, in the Quinte area, where over the past few years the caseload in these courts has increased substantially, resulting in unnecessary delays, changes in scheduling and many other additional pressures?

I might also add space is available but funds have not been forthcoming for renovations and furniture.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the caseloads have increased dramatically in almost every area of the province, but I will be very happy to look into the situation to which the member refers. I will get back to him as to what we are doing specifically in that area to relieve the caseload and in relation to any additional facilities that may be coming on-stream in the near future.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the Attorney General’s officials are investigating the shortage of facilities, would he also consider the appointment of additional judges for both the provincial and criminal courts and an additional full-time assistant crown attorney and the staff to assist in these positions?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: These matters will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOLYARD

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment. The minister will recall a question I raised with him regarding soil contamination at Manchester Public School in Cambridge. Is the minister aware that blood tests have shown two pupils to have lead levels in excess of what is considered to be normal? That is two pupils out of a total of 22 children and teachers who have been tested in that school. Will he give us his assurance that, given these lead levels have in fact, been found to be excessive, further tests will be carried out on the other children in that school to ensure their health is protected?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

[11: 00]

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary: Can the minister then tell us why it would be that his official in Cambridge, Mr. Mike Caranci, has indicated publicly that tests will be discontinued if readings do not show higher levels than they have done at the present time? Can he also tell us if the provincial government has an effective method of testing nickel content in human beings, given that nickel, which has also been found in the soil, is potentially more harmful than any of the other metals?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We took some tests a while back and the tests were within normal range. Subsequent tests were taken with more stringent controls and there was a slight elevation over normal standards. On that basis, we were prepared to do further testing.

As for the details of how we are able to test for nickel, I’m afraid I don’t have that technical expertise. I’d be glad to give it to the member. I don’t know whether we have the capabilities for testing for nickel; I suspect we do. I know we have great capabilities for testing for all heavy metal and, I suspect, nickel is included. But to make a yes or no answer I’ll have to confirm that later.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Sudbury brought to my attention a matter concerning Laurentian Hospital and one of its employees who was receiving workmen’s compensation benefits and who, it is alleged, was subjected to surveillance by a private investigator engaged by the employer.

I’ve discussed the member’s question with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and I am advised by them it is very rare for evidence obtained by such investigators to be tendered at board hearings. Where such evidence is tendered, it is the board’s obligation to rule on its admissibility, and if it is found by the board to be admissible, to give it only such weight as it sees fit.

It is important to realize that the board, as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal, is obliged to act in its adjudication upon what is admissible as proper evidence, bearing in mind that in so doing its rulings may be subject to judicial review by the courts. I, therefore, don’t believe it would be proper for me to attempt to instruct the board on my own personal views as to its right to accept evidence in any given case so long as the board subjects such evidence to careful scrutiny. I also do not believe any useful purpose can be served by expressing my personal view on the role of private investigators who are retained to gather evidence for use in litigation.

Mr. Warner: That board’s out of control.

Mr. Laughren: The minister leads it around by the nose.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It is well known that the use of such investigators is widespread in all forms of civil litigation and the courts have always made it clear that such evidence must be subjected to careful examination and scrutiny. If, in the course of gathering that evidence, investigators act in an unlawful manner, there is a legal remedy.

Whether evidence obtained under such circumstances is admissible, or is in some way tainted by the illegal conduct, would be a matter to be determined by the tribunal. I don’t believe the member’s question alleges any such illegal activity in the case, but if such an allegation is intended I can only repeat what I have said as to the possible legal consequences.

I might add that I know of no jurisdiction anywhere where the right of any party to a contested matter to rely upon evidence obtained by a private investigator has been outlawed.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary: Setting aside the activity of a private eye, as a minister of the crown would he care to make a statement as it relates to the use of public funds -- Health dollars -- for this kind of activity on behalf of the administrator of that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I’ve tried to outline in my answer, I think there are three issues: The first is it’s not illegal to retain a private investigator to do this sort of activity. The courts, in all jurisdictions, have clearly said so.

Second is the issue of what that evidence is worth. There the courts have clearly said they must make two decisions: it is admissible; and how much deference should we give to it, in view of the fact --

Mr. Warner: They’re spending public funds to spy on workers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- it’s evidence purchased for a particular purpose?

As to the question of whether or not a public body should use funds to retain such investigators, that’s a difficult question. Certainly, funds are given to bodies such as hospitals to run their hospital efficiently. If they have an honest and reasonable belief that someone is trying to mislead them with regard to some aspects, the issue is whether they have the right to investigate it. It’s a very difficult issue, I admit that. I would have to ask the Minister of Health whether or not he thinks it is appropriate for a hospital board to use that, but certainly the hospital boards are relatively independent bodies and do have decisions to make themselves.

Mr. Germa: Further supplementary: Is the minister saying the investigative branch of the Workmen’s Compensation Board is not capable of doing a proper investigation into a claim and that it needs to be second-guessed by private eyes?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I am not saying that at all. I’m saying that the Workmen’s Compensation Board, at the appeal stage and at the adjudication stage, receives information from a variety of sources: one, from its own investigation; second, from remarks or evidence or information submitted by the employee or the worker; and other information submitted, if the claim is contested, by the employer. There is a variety of sources of information. That was what my comments related to.

MILK PRICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) asked some questions concerning the pricing of fluid milk during the conversion to metric cartons by the Borden Company Limited in Ottawa.

Mr. Conway: Elsie, the Borden cow. Frank, go easy.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There were three questions involved in this. I can get rid of two of them right away.

One of the questions involved the fact that the two-litre container did not have an equivalent imperial measurement on it. Had the company done that it would have been contrary to the law.

The only time in metric conversion that a container or package is allowed to use both the imperial and the metric numbers is while the imperial sized package remains. That is called soft conversion. Once the metric container, for either liquids or solids, is on the market, only the metric measurement may remain on it. That is called hard conversion. That is the law of Canada.

I notice, by the way, the honourable member has his cartons on his desk. He forgot to give them to me last week.

Mr. Makarchuk: There’s cheese in there now.

Mr. Conway: There’s a terrible smell.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member was also apparently set up by the person who purported to give him the Borden wholesale prices. They are incorrect.

Mr. Warner: A clerical error.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have from the Borden company their wholesale milk prices in October, in January and in April. Somebody set up the dear honourable member because the prices he gave were not correct. The member said the conversion of the two-quart carton to a two-litre carton resulted in a four-cent drop in price. That is wrong. it resulted in a five-cent drop in price; he had the wrong figures.

Mr. McClellan: I think that clerk is a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The basis for that drop was that in January the price to dairies of two quarts of two per cent milk in its raw form was 58.9 cents. When converted to litres, the price of the raw milk dropped to 51.8 cents, a reduction of seven cents. The price scale-down was based only upon the raw material in the container, not the cost of container or other matters. Borden dropped the price by five cents at that time. Because of a new labour agreement with the Teamsters union signed on exactly the same day, there was a 1.1 cent additional increase put on each litre, or about two cents on the two-litre container.

It is a matter of record that when the general milk price increase came in at the end of April this year the Borden company would have been entitled to an almost eight cents increase on that two-litre container, had it followed the practice of the rest of the industry. It did not. It raised it only six cents.

To date the Borden company has passed on, to within a fraction of a penny, the exact reduction of the raw material, which is the milk, coming about from the conversion from imperial to metric measurements.

I would like to draw to the attention of the honourable member that the Metric Commission of Canada was consulted by the Borden company prior to the introduction of this new package. Secondly, the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whose representatives sit on the metric commission, also knew about this.

In view of the fact that the words “price-gouge,” “hoodwinked” and “gouge” appear in the record, I would certainly hope the honourable member, now that he has the facts, would put this matter into perspective.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, I will put it into perspective and say it is the minister who has been set up. Is he not aware the Milk Act specifically permits the province to determine the labelling, including, if they wish, to put on the content in both litres and quarts? May I quote the section of the act? Section 49: “The Ontario Milk Commission may make regulations respecting the advertising in respect of the labelling of containers for fluid milk product, or any class of fluid milk product.” They may put the imperial measurement on.

I would also ask the minister, in his role as the apologist for Borden Company Limited and particularly justifying the 10 per cent increase -- and it was a 10 per cent hike in milk prices because of the increase, which he says were because of their increased costs -- can he explain why all three dairies in the Thunder Bay area have been able to change over with less than one half the price increase of Borden’s in Ottawa?

Can the minister explain why the wholesale price of a two-litre carton in Thunder Bay charged by all of these local dairies is $1.21 compared to $1.31 for Borden’s, even though they pay four per cent more for the milk in northern Ontario?

Finally, how can he justify the increase on the basis of additional packaging costs, because this two-litre container is slightly smaller than the old two-quart container, as he will agree?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a four-part question. I think that is enough for the moment. Does the honourable minister have a response?

Mr. Swart: Can I please finish?

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s the matter? Are you afraid of the question?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, the approximate one cent increase per litre or two cents per two-litre package was not based on increased packaging cost, it was based on having to meet the increased cost negotiated by the Teamsters union in the contract at that time.

Mr. Swart: Why didn’t the rest of the milk go up by the same amount? It was only the litre that went up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is extremely difficult to keep track of the incoherent questions of the honourable member. I will try to answer them if he will only put them in order.

There are different milk prices in effect in northern Ontario, in Ottawa, in Toronto and a great number of areas in the province.

Will he send me over what he purports to be the wholesale prices? I caution him again before he gets extravagant, he may be facing a lawsuit on this. I am trying to be easy.

Mr. MacDonald: You may be facing a lawsuit on some things Frank. Wait until the transmission companies are finished with you.

Mr. Swart: Is that a threat through the company you are giving to me?

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you let their lawyers make their threats for them?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not from me. No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Just answer the question. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple and fundamental case. In the metric conversion the company reduced the amount of milk in the container. On the conversion it passed on, in the first instance, all but one cent of the saving on the litre. When the general price increase came through at the end of April it passed on the rest, because it didn’t take what it could have taken.

No matter how much the member tries to fudge this or camouflage this, or run it around the end or try to talk about Thunder Bay -- he was dead wrong last week. If he wants me to look at Thunder Bay, I would be absolutely delighted to do so, but I suggest to him, before he uses the words price gouging, hoodwinking and some other things where he goes out deliberately, because of his certain type of mentality, to try and ruin a company’s good name, he should be sure of his facts.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett).

At the present time an individual may have what is called an adjusted family income of no more than $12,500 to qualify for the Ontario Home Renewal Program. Since this qualification has not changed since the beginning of the program in 1974, would the Premier not agree that thousands of people who were eligible for the OHRP at its inception are now excluded since the eligible income level has not been raised for five years? If he does agree with that, would he assure the House he will take the necessary steps to immediately update this qualification?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s former leader says “Certainly.” Why didn’t the member ask him? It’s always easy to be more generous in opposition than in government.

Mr. Nixon: You are not generous at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, we are. We are so generous it is embarrassing on occasion. Listen, the member’s leader has become so generous, I just noticed in the paper this morning, he’s prepared to give a 30 or 40 per cent --

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to move over and have a nice little chat?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess we could, Mr. Speaker, it’s that time of day.

Mr. Speaker: Then we can get on with the business of question period.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we haven’t really done that totally in the past hour, why should I be any exception? I will try to answer the question; I understand.

Mr. Cunningham: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The qualification level has not altered. I think it really isn’t as simplistic as that. The qualification level could change but, depending on the total amount of funding, that might not be as relevant as how much money is available. So, if the level of qualification were moved up and the funding were to remain the same it isn’t necessarily the people who need it the most who will get it. With the level of funding that presently exists, probably the qualification level is logical at this moment, but I’m quite prepared to discuss it with the minister as long as the member understands that there are limitations on total amount of money available in this program.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: Of course we understand that, but I guess I should ask, does he understand? The point we make is that the same number of people today would be eligible if that level were raised. Would the Premier give us some assurance that when he is discussing this with the Minister of Housing, at least the inflation rate in the last five years will be taken into account?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We always take into account many things, not just the inflation rate. I certainly will raise that with the minister, but I caution the honourable member not to raise his expectations in terms of the amount of funding that will be available for this particular program. We think it’s excellent, but there are limitations on total dollars available.

BOISE CASCADE DISPUTE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General, who I’m told is lurking in the precincts somewhere, I would like to address a question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Is the minister aware that in the court cases currently being held in Kenora over the last few days, of the 34 charges heard up until 10 o’clock last night that had been laid by both the town and the provincial police for alleged incidents on the picket lines during the strike of Boise Cascade by the lumber and sawmill workers, 10 of those charges had been withdrawn, 16 charges dismissed, two charges resulted in conditional discharge and only six resulted in convictions the penalties for five of which were fines of less than $100? Does he not feel it is plainly evident that when four fifths of the charges laid have been found to be unjustified there was a clear harassment of the picketers by the OPP and the town police and they used frivolous charges to remove men from the picket lines for up to seven months? Does he not find that use of police as strike breakers an unfair thing to do and something that should not be condemned by this government?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think I would be wise to refer that matter to the Attorney General for a more detailed answer.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Can the minister, while he is consulting with the chief law officer of the crown, indicate why one of the strikers, one Robert Dale Lougheed, who was charged and during the course of the charge was kept from the precincts of Boise Cascade property but, when he decided to cross the picket line, even though the charge had not been withdrawn, it was suddenly all right for him to go near Boise property and work on it? Can he clarify that point in law?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I will include that in my discussion with the Attorney General, yes.

ILLEGAL DUMPING OF LIQUID WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’ll ask your guidance on this. I believe there is a matter of privilege here. Three months ago, in this House I asked of the Minister of the Environment certain information, including copies of any inspection certificates of sites that had accepted hazardous waste and site inspection certificates for the Upper Ottawa Street dump. You will appreciate, sir, that the only way one can check on illegal dumping is by an actual inspection report by an inspector who actually looks at the place.

That question was repeated several times. Today, three months later, I have received from the minister some answers to various questions and, at the bottom, by way of answering the question on site inspection certificates, the minister says: “Response to this question will be forthcoming in due course.”

Site inspection certificates exist, or they don’t exist. They can be produced, I would imagine, for someone to look at, to see if there is illegality going on. For three months to go by with repeated demands and letters and questions and then to be told the day we are rising for the summer they will be forthcoming in due course, seems to me an abuse of the spirit of the idea of question and answer in this assembly, if not the actual regulation in law.

Of course, the question comes to mind as to what the ministry is hiding, but apart from that, the question is why does the minister not show more respect for us as elected representatives? I must answer to my constituents, who tell me arsenic and various things have gone into these dumps and I can’t answer their questions if I can’t look at those reports. I can’t do my job properly if I am not given access to these matters.

I would ask you. Mr. Speaker, to take into consideration the sort of answer we have been given, after three months of waiting for these certificates.

Mr. Speaker: It is really not a point of privilege. The minister can answer in any way he sees fit and deems proper and one can only assume he is still seeking the information or, conversely, he chooses not to answer. You have to draw your own conclusions from that. It is not within the purview of the Speaker to demand action from a minister of the crown.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not speaking to the point of privilege, but I did send the information I now wish to table to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this morning. I want to put on the table, sir, the details of this material we have now in reply to the questions previously asked.

Mr. S. Smith: He is not speaking to the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what he is tabling is the information he sent me, which includes the offensive answer which I read to you, saying the information is coming in due course.

Mr. Speaker: What I said earlier still applies.

Mr. S. Smith: I understand, Mr. Speaker.

REPORTS

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon. W. Newman presented the report on foreign ownership of agricultural land in Kent and Huron counties.

Hon. W. Newman: There has been a great deal of discussion in the Legislature on the alleged sale of Ontario agricultural land to foreign buyers. My ministry has prepared a report, as I promised, on Kent and Huron counties. We also assembled the figures for all other counties in Ontario, showing the amount of land held by owners nonresident in Canada. Today I would like to submit this report to the Legislature.

From the data, it appears very little Ontario agricultural land is owned by nonresident people.

Mr. Riddell: Over three per cent.

Hon. W. Newman: However, if the members have any additional information, now or in the future, I should appreciate their passing it along to me, and I will have it looked into.

The information in this report came from government records.

Mr. Gaunt: We will continue to do your work for you.

Hon. W. Newman: My ministry will continue to monitor this most important matter and will update the information regularly.

An hon. member: We will give you some of ours.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you give it to me then? I have asked you for it. Give it to me.

Mr. Nixon: We will give it to you, Bill.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Renwick from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Massey Hall;

Bill Pr14, An Act to Revive the January School as Montcrest School;

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the Trustees of the Windsor Grove Cemetery.

Your committee recommends that the fees less the actual cost of printing be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Massey Hall;

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive the January School as Montcrest School.

Report adopted.

SUMMER RECESS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 10, on which day the committees will sit as scheduled. The House will sit in the chamber on Thursday, October 11, provided that if it appears to Mr. Speaker after advice from the government that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice. Should Mr. Speaker be unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on the request of the standing resources development committee the committee while sitting during the summer recess to consider the Hydro matter referred to it may, if necessary, ask Mr. Speaker through the office of the clerk to issue his warrant or warrants for the attendance of a witness or witnesses.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the motion I think is a relatively important one since that committee has directed to it by the Legislature a review of the contracts between Hydro and the Babcock and Wilcox corporation having to do with the boilers that have been so much a subject of interest and importance in this House. It has been brought to my attention that while a Speaker’s warrant for the compulsion of witnesses may be necessary, and therefore this motion would make it available, it is also quite possible that a Speaker’s warrant may very well be necessary for certain “papers and things” -- a phrase you know very well, sir -- that is put out in the establishment of the committee by motion. With your permission, sir, I would move an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves an amendment to the motion placed by the government House leader, to amend it by adding “and for the production of papers and things deemed necessary by the committee.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: I don’t have any objection to that. I thought, during the discussion prior to introducing the motion, we had cleared up that matter. I thought the motion establishing the standing committees gives them that authority now and that this is simply for purposes of clarification. I think it adds nothing to the authority which the committee already has as far as papers and other materials are concerned, but certainly if this helps to clarify it we have no objection.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that substitution be permitted on the standing procedural affairs committee during the summer recess.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Breaugh: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, might I point out that a change in the rules of this House requires unanimous consent.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this obviously is some indication of lack of communication. If the Speaker will allow it, perhaps later on today we can cover the specific substitutions we want to provide for now, which will be on majority rule rather than having a blanket substitution. I do apologize to the chairman of the committee. I thought this matter had been cleared.

Mr. Breaugh: No.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I ask for a ruling. It would seem the rules do require there be no substitution on the standing procedural affairs committee during the life of a parliament, except as agreed to by the House. I take it we can accomplish what we want to do, as long as we are specific. In other words, the House will by majority vote actually substitute members on the committee. We can do that without unanimous consent.

I suggest to my colleagues that we now be giving some thought to the preparation of a motion that would specifically make the substitutions before we adjourn some time today, rather than the blanket substitution previously requested.

Mr. Speaker: Without unanimous consent the motion is out of order.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following substitutions be made: On the standing resources development committee, Mr. J. A. Taylor for Mr. Yakabuski; on the standing administration of justice committee, Mr. Jones for Mr. Cureatz, Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Rotenberg, Mr. McCaffrey for Mr. Sterling, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. J. A. Taylor, Mr. Turner for Mr. Williams; on the select committee on company law, Mr. Handleman for Mr. Cureatz; and on the select committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Isaacs for Mr. Grande.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BALLOT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Rotenberg be substituted for Mr. Rollins in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that all members of the Conservative caucus listed on the new ballot be advanced by one place in their turn.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Mancini be substituted for Mr. Haggerty on the standing procedural affairs committee.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following standing committees be authorized to meet during the summer recess in accordance with the schedule of meetings agreed to by the three party whips to consider matters referred to them by the House: resources development committee, administration of justice committee, public accounts committee and procedural affairs committee.

Motion agreed to.

REDIRECTION OF BILL 100

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the order for third reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound, be discharged and the bill referred back to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Nixon: I will defer to my colleague.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, we were given notice a few minutes ago that this was going to be done. I thought this House had dealt fairly adequately and completely with the various amendments that were before us the other day. I see no reason at this time why the bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole House.

The government had prided itself on having done six years of studies on this whole problem. It had every opportunity to bring in amendments. Now, in the dying hours of this session, it wants to introduce another amendment. As far as I am concerned, the government is not playing according to the way this House usually responds to the public will. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by having this matter go back to committee of the whole.

This morning I received a telegram which conveniently was not raised in this House the other day by the government; I wish they had raised it. I will read it: “Please be reminded that our association has sent over 1,000 signatures of persons opposed to the proposed single archipelago municipality to Mr. Darcy McKeough together with a registered letter on June 29, 1978. We also informed Mr. Tom Wells of this in a registered letter of October 11, 1978. We can furnish copies as well as several hundred additional names. Please relate this in the debate on third reading of Bill 100.” It was signed, “80,000 Islands Protection Association,” which is in the Parry Sound area.

I think this is important to this House. As far as I am concerned this matter should receive third reading and royal assent.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated to us that third reading of this bill would not be proceeded with even though the wishes of the House have been expressed in committee of the whole and the committee had reported the bill for third reading.

We have come to an understanding that with the amendment that may be moved if the bill is returned to committee of the whole, the bill will be given third reading and that third reading will be given today.

We feel it is very important that a structure of local government be put in place in the unorganized territory located in the district of Parry Sound and that the other changes contained in this bill be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible. If this procedure assists in that, then we are prepared to support the motion.

Mr. Nixon: I have a feeling this matter may occupy us for a time -- if not this motion then perhaps what might follow.

I was surprised when the committee work was completed by votes in this House. The honourable member who was about to rise and speak, the minister who is responsible for intergovernmental affairs, had not had the responsibility for carriage of the legislation. His legislative assistant was looking after it. By the government’s perception of our rules the minister himself for some reason felt he had to be absent during that time.

I was also interested that the Premier, who is particularly interested in local government in that area, also was absent except for the vote itself. In the kind of informal exchange he sometimes participates in, he indicated his great displeasure with the way the debate had gone and the way it appeared to him the votes were going.

We pointed out to him that really it’s his responsibility and the responsibility of the minister to be sure the members of the House on all sides know the people’s views. We have canvassed the opinions of the local people. My colleague who has just spoken and the honourable member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) went up into the area and spoke to the people directly concerned. We brought forward amendments to the government legislation which were carried in this House in the proper way.

Some members were not pleased with it, just as occasionally when the members opposite bring in certain legislation, certain votes are taken that don’t please everybody in this House. But that’s the way democracy works. After all, the matter had come to a conclusion; a decision had been made; and the matter was then referred to the House for third reading. It now stands on the order paper for that purpose.

I would hope the House could go on with third reading of the bill so that the matter can be carried on as we would expect. It is quite possible for the government, if they choose -- on proper notice -- to make an amendment on third reading. The bill would then not be read a third time but be sent back to committee for further work.

This seems to be a strange way to discharge the business of the House, and really we can’t support it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this motion. First of all, I really am surprised by my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. In his long history in this House he has always, I think, prided himself on listening to the wishes of the people. He represented the people of Brant township in the Brant-Brantford annexation problem very well, and in other matters has listened to the wishes of the local people.

We believe this is a very important piece of legislation. It was considered for over six years by various groups and studied in this House. It contains several parts, some having to do with the archipelago municipality, the new municipality being created out of unorganized areas. It also has some unrelated restructuring that will occur in the district of Parry Sound, all of them having been studied for a considerable length of time.

The House considered this the other day and in its wisdom by vote decided to create two new townships rather than one, as proposed in the bill and as proposed by all the experts who had studied this in the last year or so, and indeed as was wished by the local residents, permanent and summer, in the particular areas affected.

Mr. Epp: You’re omitting the Martin report of 1975-76.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend says I’m omitting the Martin report. He knows very well the man who wrote that report is my special assistant. If there’s one thing I get good advice on it is the Martin report, from Mr. Dave Martin, who wrote the report. That report was written with certain things in mind and certain people have come forward since then to present their views.

I’m sure my friend has received a copy of the letter I’m going to read today, which I think justifies the action we’re taking. I want to commend my friends in the third party because I think what we’re trying to do is preserve out of this some semblance of recognizing the desires for the people in the local areas to decide. In other words, what we’re saying is we’re accepting the will of the House but we’re also providing a mechanism whereby what is the express wish of the people in the archipelago area can be effected without -- as my friend well knows, something we’ve been discussing ad infinitum in this House -- long-protracted annexations.

Mr. Nixon: Did you have a referendum or something? What is the expressed wish?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The express wish is from the Georgian Bay Association.

I want to read the letter. It says: “Dear Mr. Wells:

“In the light of the amendments by the opposition critics of Bill 100 presently before the Legislature, it is my view that in the light of the design and work that has gone into this project the bill is so compromised that it is less than satisfactory.

“Our major concern in forming the new archipelago municipality was to provide efficient, responsible local government with major emphasis on planning and environment. In addition to this, we wish to ensure the participation of all the inhabitants in the formation of one municipality. As a result of the amendments, this will not be so.

“We wish to thank the government and its several ministries which have contributed so valiantly for the support of this project. It is with tragic regret that the opposition parties failed to recognize the significance of the proposed legislation and the overwhelming support of all the inhabitants in the area.

“For the following major reasons we would kindly ask that the government not proceed with the bill: (1) Six years of planning; (2) Professional advice ignored; (3) Ministry recommendations compromised; (4) Wishes of the inhabitants not recognized by the parties in the Legislature.

“I believe the government and the association do not wish to initiate legislation that has very little chance of success. Hopefully, we can continue to work towards the goals that have become recognized and supported by so many people throughout the province at another time under different circumstances.

“Yours sincerely,

“C. W. King, President, the Georgian Bay Association”

He also puts a postscript which is very important, Mr. Speaker: “As our mandate pertains to the islands and shoreline, the above remarks pertain to that part of the bill dealing with the archipelago municipality.”

I considered that letter very seriously. I considered it because in the last 48 hours in that area a petition with over 1,000 names was presented to us supporting the legislation and one municipality for the archipelago.

However, I also weighed very carefully the wishes of this House because we cannot take frivolously and we cannot ignore the wishes of this House. The wishes of this House were that two municipalities be created.

I also considered the postscript in that letter very important. My colleague from the riding of Parry Sound has been working many years with the other municipalities to help them effect the annexations and amalgamations which they have been desirous of having. This also is in the bill. Therefore, it would be folly for us not to proceed with the bill,

[11:45]

Also, I believe it would be folly to ignore what seem to be and what I think are, in fact, the wishes of the people in that area; it would be folly to override and to run roughshod over their wishes and impose something which is completely new and different to municipalities. Incidentally, these are being created -- at least one of them and, if my facts are right, both of them -- with a fewer number of permanent residences than we’ve ever used as a basis for creating an organized municipality in any area in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: There aren’t many organized townships that small.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not believe that there are any that have fewer than 500 permanent residences. So, weighing all these things, Mr. Speaker, we feel it is the prudent course of action, and we are asking the House’s consideration of this, we’re not trying to arbitrarily push anything through. That’s why I discussed it with my friends on the other side; we’re asking the House to look at what is a real people problem.

You have people up there who wanted something. They see their wishes frustrated down here. Let’s live with their wishes and let’s give them an opportunity and an easy and inexpensive way to decide, once the new council is elected, if they wish to be joined together. It’s as simple as that. If they don’t wish to be joined together they never will. In that case there would be two municipalities. But if they do wish, it will be a simple process.

Mr. Nixon: What about this telegram referring to the 1,000 signatures on the other side? What do you mean, the people want it? You don’t have a referendum.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They won’t have to go through an OMB hearing. The minister may, by order, amalgamate the areas. It’s as simple as that. If the members opposite want to run roughshod over the wishes of the people and use as an excuse the fact that this Legislature has spoken and the positions taken in this Legislature, they are welcome to do so, but, I think we have a reasonable compromise here that I cannot see any reasonable person not accepting.

Mr. Nixon: A reasonable compromise is to do the best two out of three and do it your way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Listen, of the people who have phoned me about this, a lot of them are Liberals.

Mr. Nixon: What about the 1,000 who have sent the telegram to my honourable colleague?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That telegram was well over a year ago. That was before all the discussions had gone on. The latest petition from people up there has been that they would like one municipality.

Mr. Epp: How could that be? The minister says they have been discussing it for six years and now he says that was before all the discussions have gone on.

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t sound right to me, Tom,

Hon. Mr. Wells: The discussions have gone on. Believe me, some of the people who have phoned are very good Liberals, too.

Mr. Ruston: The minister should have been in here and put them in the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I’m saying to the members on this Friday is that we have here a very reasonable compromise to help all to accept the wishes of the parties who would like to see two municipalities, but also to provide in the bill a mechanism where, if it is their own wish and, democratically, they do wish to amalgamate, we can save them the time and expense of a very costly and complicated OMB hearing.

Mr. Mancini: More regional government.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this motion should be passed by this House and we have already given the critics of the two opposition parties a very simple amendment which could be proposed and could be inserted in the bill and which, I think, would serve the ends of all of us in this House.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Welch’s motion to redirect Bill 100, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Auld, Baetz, Belanger, Birch, Bounsall, Breaugh, Brunelle, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Cureatz, Davis, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Drea, Eaton, Foulds, Germa, Grande, Gregory, Handleman,

Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Isaacs, Johnson, J., Jones, Kennedy, Lane, Laughren, Leluk, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Maeck, Makarchuk, Martel, McCaffrey, McCague, McClellan, Newman, W., Parrott, Philip,

Pope, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Swart, Taylor, G., Taylor, J. A., Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Warner, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski, Ziemba.

Nays

Blundy, Bradley, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Eakins, Epp, Gaunt, Haggerty, Kerrio, Mancini, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, B., Nixon, O’Neil, Peterson, Riddell, Ruston, Smith, S., Sweeney, Worton.

Ayes 64; nays 24.

POLLUTION COMPLAINT

Mr. Martel: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Might I ask if it is your intention to rule on the unpleasant business that occurred here last night, in view of the fact that today is the last day the Legislature will sit until October 10?

Mr. Speaker: I did undertake to review the record. The only thing that was available to me was Instant Hansard. The more I read it, the more confused I became. I fail to see where there was any specific allegation against any member of the House. The matter raised by the member for Wentworth was obviously reconciled as a result of the actions taken by the minister. It was raised again by the member for Carleton East and the minister said unequivocally that there was no reference to her personally.

I see no reference here to any member of the House having acted improperly. Had there been, the only recourse the Speaker has is “allegation against another member.” I have looked very, very carefully and I fail to see any allegation against a member of this House or a group of members of this House. So really there is nothing for me to rule on.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member for Sudbury East should sit down while he is ahead.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if we are reading the same Hansard, but if you turn to page 1805-1 it says: “When mail is opened when it is clearly addressed to the solicitor for my ministry, I have to say to the NDP over there ‘Where are your scruples?’”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Where are they?

Mr. Pope: Where are they?

Mr. Speaker: Let’s not confuse the issue now. You are dealing with a reference to page 1805-1 of Instant Hansard. The allegations contained in there were withdrawn by the minister quite clearly.

Mr. Martel: Where?

Mr. Speaker: The record will show that.

Mr. Martel: I read the record.

Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you open your eyes?

Mr. Speaker: I have read it too. The only other issue was as a result of the point of privilege raised by the member for Carleton East. The Minister of the Environment said: “I am not making any reference to the member for the Ottawa-Carleton area.” So there is no allegation against any member of this House that I can see in here. Instant Hansard doesn’t help me at all. Had there been, it would have constituted an allegation against a member. I fail to see it in here. There is really nothing for me to rule on.

Mr. Havrot: Let’s stop the nitpicking and get on.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 256 standing on the Notice Paper and the answers to questions 228 to 234, inclusive, questions 241, 246, 252, 253, 255, 258, 259, 261, 262 and 270 and the interim answer to question 247.

[12:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

VILLAGE OF POINT EDWARD ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 131, An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward.

Mr. Rotenberg: This bill contains several provisions dealing with municipal taxation on real property of the Blue Water Bridge Authority located in the village of Point Edward in Lambton county.

Before describing its provisions, I would first like to provide some historical background. In 1940, legislation was enacted to make the portion of the bridge in Ontario exempt from taxation, including local improvement and school rates, except for a fixed annual tax payment of $5,000 per annum to the village. The village eventually became dissatisfied with the lack of tax revenues from the bridge and legislation was enacted in 1970 to make the property liable to assessment under section 27 of the Assessment Act.

This did not prove completely satisfactory, and after negotiations the bridge authority and the village agreed on a schedule of tax payments for the years 1971 to 1977. This was formalized by legislation passed here in 1972. When the agreement expired at the end of 1977, the authority and the village were unable to agree on new terms and as a result no payment was made in 1978.

This is not a satisfactory situation, especially in the light of the fact that the authority is acquiring additional property, thereby further reducing the tax base of the municipality. The bill proposes an appropriate long-term solution while allowing a four-year phase-in period.

Section 1 of the bill provides that the provisions of the Assessment Act will apply to the real property of the authority located in the village, except for the bridge structure.

Section 2 sets out a proposed new schedule of payments to the village for the years 1978 through 1982 in lieu of municipal taxes, including school taxes, on the bridge structure. This means that until the end of 1982 the authority will pay to the village the amounts set out in section 2(1) of the bill, plus local improvement rates, as well as full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on all of its real property except the bridge structure. Section 2(3) of the bill provides that starting in 1983 the authority will pay full municipal taxes, including school taxes, on the bridge structure as well.

The bridge authority is set up by the federal government but is not an authority in the normal sense. It is a private corporation set up by the federal government and is bound by this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Blundy: The haste with which the government is dealing with this bill simply amazes me, not only this morning here in the House, but since it was first suggested that the bill be passed.

I want to speak briefly on the bill. I support the intent of the bill, because I know the only source of funds for the municipality is the taxes on assessments. In Ontario that right to tax must be protected and that is the case in the village of Point Edward. The problem I find is the bill does not take into consideration certain things I believe will happen and which will have a poor effect. I would like to mention these very shortly.

The bridge commission is not set up to accumulate profits, and over the last several years it has had a deficit on operations. It is obvious they are not going to be able to pay the kind of taxes that will have to be paid at the end of 1982. I have checked with the assessment department in Chatham and find that the total assessment on the bridge is $578,645. I got these figures from the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) the other day. This is split in the following way: $342,565 on the structure of the bridge and $236,080 on the lands and buildings of the bridge in the village 0f Point Edward.

I wonder if anybody has given any consideration to the fact that the present toll on the bridge is 35 cents, whether one is coming from Michigan or Ontario. The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) will recall that after the debentures on the centre span were paid off there were several years in which there were no tolls on the bridge at all. This was caused because the state of Michigan’s highways department was responsible for their portion of the bridge to the international boundary line and they were not able to charge tolls or they would jeopardize certain grants from the US federal government.

Several years later a bill was introduced on their side which to some extent rectified that situation. However, the Michigan highways commission pays no taxes whatsoever to the city of Port Huron on the Michigan side and they are most reluctant to raise tolls. Even when the tolls were raised to the present 35 cents it was done after much discussion with the American side of the bridge, the Michigan highway department.

I can see the following scenario happening if, as I suspect, in 1983 the Blue Water Bridge Commission would be paying in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to $160,000 a year taxes. In order to pay those kinds of taxes, along with the other operating costs the authority has on the approach and the bridge to the international boundary line, they would have to raise tolls to 55, 65 cents or more, so we could have the situation where one may cross the St. Clair River from the Michigan side and pay 35 cents and cross from the Ontario side and pay 50, 55, 60 or 65 cents. This certainly would not be a very good situation.

I would like very much for the parliamentary assistant to think about that and give me his views on what he thinks will happen there.

The other matter that came to my attention when I searched this bill is that most of the bridge structure that goes from the land to the international boundary line is in the township of Sarnia. The pier for the main span stands in the lands of the village of Point Edward, but those lands, I am told, end at the waterline. So for the greatest proportion of the bridge structure the boundary line would be in the township of Sarnia. This bill makes no reference to the township of Sarnia.

There are a number of these situations I would like to have explained and which ought to be explained before we go further into this matter. I know the people of Sarnia-Lambton would want to have a proper explanation of any increase in bridge tolls that takes place. As I said initially, I believe the village of Point Edward must be protected as far as its taxes on assessment are concerned. I want to emphasize that and I do want some explanation for the matters which I have raised in conjunction with the details of this bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about which one has to be fairly pragmatic. It is setting up a system for taxation of the Blue Water Bridge in the property tax system that we have before us today. We have some difficulty with property taxes as they are being levied in this province. But we have to recognize that the village of Point Edward is dependent for a substantial amount of its income on the Blue Water Bridge. This bill assists with a dispute that has been going on over a long period of time.

In addition, the bill puts the Blue Water Bridge in the same position as at least the majority and perhaps all the other international bridges that come into this province. Because of that, we’re going to support the bill. There’s one concern I want to raise, however. These payments the Blue Water Bridge Authority will be making to the village of Point Edward are an indirect tax on the motoring public that makes use of that bridge, both residents of this province and residents of the United States. It’s another example of where hidden taxes are becoming a more and more significant part of the revenue that is provided either directly or indirectly to the government.

The funds being paid by the motorists are going to the village of Point Edward so the government of Ontario does not have to provide that village with compensatory grants. That concerns me a great deal. We will support it because it’s convenient in the present tax structure, but if we had our druthers we would do it a different way.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 137, An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward. I wasn’t going to enter into the debate until the member for Wentworth entered into it and indicated that this was another form of indirect taxing policy by the government or by local municipalities.

I happen to represent an area that is very much involved in this type of legislation. It relates to the international bridge at Fort Erie, Ontario, which has a bridge commission similar to the Blue Water Bridge Authority. Much of this bill is taken from a private bill of the town of Fort Erie as it relates to the schedule of fees.

I think the member for Wentworth should be well aware of the problems that are created in a municipality where there is an international bridge. It certainly does bring in a certain amount of revenue, but it also compounds certain problems within the municipality. There are other service roads and interconnecting roads that meet an international bridge, and much of their cost is borne by the municipality.

In the particular legislation relating to Fort Erie, under the former county of Welland system we knew at that time that we could not assess the bridge. It was not covered under the Assessment Act. In the explanatory notes of this bill it definitely states that: “Under this section the real property of the Blue Water Bridge Authority, except the structure known as the Blue Water Bridge, is made subject to the provisions of the Assessment Act. At the present time the Assessment Act does not apply to the real property of the bridge authority.”

[12:30]

Members of county council, along with the council of the town of Fort Erie, have known full well the business generated at the bridge from tolls. In the Fort Erie area, for example, by the time they paid all their operating expenses, there was about $300,000 or $400,000 a year going to the federal government. The council thought, at that time, and the county did as well, that in no way should this amount of revenue go to Ottawa. They thought there should be some reimbursement to the town that had provided most of the services. A gentleman’s agreement, made by the Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, which included Buffalo, permitted the town to assess or tax certain portions of the bridge. In 1976, it generated $83,500 for the town of Fort Erie. That’s quite a bit of revenue. I know they’re now working an agreement for one year. I say this, and the member for Sarnia has mentioned it here, by looking at the pro-rated assessment value that’s put on there that would generate revenue for the village of Point Edward, it was $57,000 in 1978; $65,000 in 1979; and will be $80,000 in 1982.

I hope the parliamentary assistant has given consideration to the question raised by the member for Sarnia that it should be based upon the tolls generated. It could mean there may be a substantial increase in tolls on that bridge if they go to the schedule established there.

I don’t know what revenue is generated. The member mentioned they had run a deficit after paying all the operational costs, the bridge maintenance and so forth. I don’t know how they’re going to collect that money unless the toll is raised. I suggest to the member that perhaps he should consider that again. Perhaps the schedule he has is too high. For example, people say Fort Erie is the number one port of entry into Canada, the most used port of entry into Canada. Perhaps more revenue generated from this area could generate the $83,500 that’s paid to the town in lieu of taxes. I suggest the $80,000 figure may have just been pulled out of mid air. It may be too high. I don’t know, but if it is too high there is no need to increase the tolls on the bridge. If they have to generate that much money, the members can rest assured the tolls will probably go up to about 50 cents. I don’t know. At Fort Erie it costs 35 cents to cross the bridge one way. I don’t know what it is at the Blue Water Bridge.

Mr. Blundy: Thirty-five cents.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s 35 cents, so they’re the same.

The toll depends upon the flow of traffic coming across this particular bridge. Can they generate sufficient funds there? I hope the parliamentary assistant will take a look at that.

I support the bill in principle. The Fort Erie bill is usually passed in the Ontario Legislature as a private bill, a municipal bill, but it’s done by agreement between the two parties; that is, the local municipality and the bridge authority. In this particular instance there seems to be no agreement between the two parties. If this bill is passed here today and becomes law they are dictating back to the local authorities this must be law. It’s an international bridge. It’s a federal matter in a sense.

Unless an amendment to the Assessment Act is brought in I suggest this to the minister, or to the parliamentary assistant, from my dealings and discussions with the town of Fort Erie while on county council a few years ago. If there is no gentlemen’s agreement between the authority and the local council they may never be able to collect that tax. I think the bridge authority has a right to appeal it. How can they tax them under the Assessment Act, when it’s not there? I suggest there should be a gentlemen’s agreement between the two parties rather than bringing in legislation to say this is what it’s going to be. There may be a court case involved in this.

I will tell the members, from my experience in dealing with it in the Fort Erie area this was always one of the problems council and the bridge authority had to consider; if there was no agreement between the two parties it would probably have to be settled in court -- if it was pushed too far.

I bring that to the members’ attention, but I support the principle of the bill. I think it is time all the bridges were assessed so the proper revenue can be generated to assist the municipalities.

I can say this much about the Fort Erie bridge, it is a healthy bridge. About $300,000 goes to the federal government of Canada and about the same amount goes to the Buffalo Port Authority. That money is used to support certain other things within that community in the city of Buffalo. In the past I think they have used it to help get their international airport under way. I suggest there is revenue there, but it has to be done in the right manner.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because we all want to get away and until the member for Erie spoke I hadn’t intended to speak. The figures he gave for the Fort Erie area and the bridge there are correct, but I want to point out to him and to this House the position of this party. As explained by the member for Wentworth, we go along with this bill because this situation exists with other international bridges in this province, but we believe in principle that they should not be taxed. They should not be taxed for property tax purposes.

There is just something unacceptable about taxing bridges. We have bridges going across the Welland Canal. We have the Burlington bridge. If one says in principle bridges should be taxed, you are saying in effect that bridges in those communities should be taxed as well, because the same sort of situation exists. All we are saying here is that because it is done elsewhere, because it is at the present time a source of revenue for those municipalities and because the others which have a similar situation get it, we are supporting it very definitely at the present time. In the long run, there is something unacceptable to us about levying property taxes on bridges.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this bill this morning, first, I would like to inform the House that the member for Sarnia is, I believe, as aware of this bridge as anybody in Ontario, barring all. The member for Sarnia happened to be around on October 13, 1938, and walked across this bridge on the night it opened. The member for Lambton did the same thing. That’s how long we have been associated with this bridge.

Mr. Haggerty: Yon were in your prime then.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We thought we were.

Mr. Blundy: We could walk across the bridge in those days.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I mention 1938 to bring on another subject, namely, that in 1940 a bill went through this Legislature that excluded this bridge from taxation. The reason I want to refer to that bill is that on February 24, 1940, this bill was assented to. On February 24, 1940, this House prorogued for the year. There have been some changes in 39 years.

Mr. Haggerty: You’ve been around for quite a while.

Mr. B. Newman: Those were the good old days.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. Then we advance to the next step. That bill permitted a grant in lieu of taxes of $5,000 per year to the village of Point Edward to apply towards the rates, county school boards, what have you. Shortly after that bill went through, the member for Sarnia and the member for Lambton went to work for $1.10 a day. We did get an advance to $1.80 a day, working for the government down through the years.

If we apply that $1.10 or $1.30 a day to the $5,000 grant, and then if we apply the salaries the member for Sarnia and I are getting today against the proposed grant, I would think that grant, instead of being some $57,000, going up to $80,000, might even be $300,000 to $400,000.

The member for Wentworth suggested that this was hidden tax to the province of Ontario. I would have to differ with the honourable member. I would have to tell him there is nothing hidden with respect to this tax.

The former member for Sarnia brought a private bill before the House back in the late 1960s similar to the bill which was passed in 1972, which did permit the schedule referred to earlier. It was supported by all sides of the House. This act does not give funds to the province of Ontario. This act gives funds to the school boards in Sarnia and Lambton, to the county of Lambton and to the village of Point Edward. It is shared on that basis. Again I differ with his thoughts that the province of Ontario is going to benefit.

The member for Sarnia brought out a point respecting this bridge passing over land under the jurisdiction of Sarnia township. When the bylaw passed by the county of Lambton set out Point Edward as a separate municipality with village status, it would appear those people drafting that bylaw did not include the water lots off the village of Point Edward and they still remain in Sarnia township.

When the government considered this legislation it was well aware of that problem existing down there. The chairman of the legislation committee of cabinet took the position that Sarnia township does not render any services to this area and the taxes should go to the village of Point Edward. So this bill does not permit Sarnia township any of these taxes and makes it quite clear the taxes are for the village of Point Edward.

The member for Welland brought up points which I believe I answered, and I believe I answered the member for Erie. We recognize they have an important point of entry but the member for Sarnia and I would argue that Sarnia is equally important. I believe I have answered all of the questions. If there are more, I would be very happy to answer them on behalf of the government.

Mr. Rotenberg: I believe the minister of Government Services answered the questions and summed up. I hope now we can take a vote on second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GITY OF OTTAWA AGT

Mr. B. Newman, on behalf of Mr. Roy, moved second reading of Bill Pr9, An act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MASSEY HALL ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Mrs. Scrivener, moved second reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Massey Hall.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MONTCREST SCHOOL ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Mrs. Scrivener, moved second reading of Bill Pr14, An Act to revive the January School as Montcrest School.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TRUSTEES OF WINDSOR GROVE CEMETERY ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the Trustees of the Windsor Grove Cemetery.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I plan now to go into committee of the whole House, but before we do perhaps this would be the time to deal with Bill 100 and then we have a few other government bills to clear up. Rather than bringing the House back out of committee into House, I’m just wondering now about the time. We would normally adjourn at 1 o’clock. I’m wondering if we could have the agreement of the House now that we perhaps might finish our other work if we added an hour and go until 2 o’clock to see whether we can accommodate the remaining legislation.

Mr. Nixon: We have no objection. I just wonder if the House leader would indicate what on the list he wants to deal with?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That would mean that between now and 2 o’clock we might get Bill 100, then Bills 101, 95, 103, 104, 116, and 117.

Mr. Nixon: How about Bill 114?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know we were hoping to get to Bill 114, so I’d add that to the list. If the House could agree to go until 2 o’clock --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Possibly then I should ask if the House would give unanimous agreement to sit past 1 o’clock.

Motion agreed to.

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.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Wells moves that Bill 100 be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“12(1) Upon application to the minister by the townships constructed under sections 3 and 4 that the townships be incorporated as one township municipality, the minister may by order effect the incorporation on the date specified in the order and in such order may provide for the name of the new township, the composition of the council of the new township and the election of the members of the council of the new township.

“(2) The provisions of this part apply with necessary modifications to a new township established under subsection 1.”

He further moves that sections 12 to 25 as printed in the bill be renumbered accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think I had really indicated most of my comments on this when we had the motion to revert to committee of the whole House to consider this amendment. What, in effect, this does is add to that first part of the bill which deals with the archipelago municipalities, the bill which now creates Georgian Bay North Archipelago township and Georgian Bay South Archipelago township. It provides a section whereby if those townships, after they are constituted -- and it in no way says they will not be constituted; it says that they must be constituted and they must be legally operating townships -- both ask by bylaw, because that is how townships carry on business, that they be amalgamated together to form one township, the minister would have the power by order to cause that to happen. In so doing, he could set out the necessary arrangements for that, such as providing for the name, or the minister could in this case ask that a vote be taken on the name, provide the date upon which the amalgamation would take place, and also provide for such other necessary modifications to the bill to allow that to take place.

As I explained earlier, what this does is provide in the bill a mechanism for the achievement of the one township, which was the original idea many of the people in the area wanted. It provides for that achievement without a lengthy and expensive annexation or amalgamation battle before the Ontario Municipal Board, or some other such procedure. I think it is a very reasonable sort of thing to suggest it be added to this bill.

I appreciate and understand the feelings of the official opposition in this matter. They feel, having amended the bill, that it should stay exactly as it is. I think that having regard for the length of time this matter has been studied, that the real feelings on the part of many of the local residents is that they would like to have one municipality, and realizing that this House has decided that there should be two -- something which, incidentally, was in the original Martin report. However, upon consideration and discussion and dialogue and a whole variety of processes that went on after its publication, the feeling was that one municipality would be better than two.

Mr. Nixon: It is the first time you have defended it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Defended what?

Mr. Nixon: The concept of one. You haven’t even been here for the debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have a parliamentary assistant who is quite capable of handling some of these things.

Mr. Nixon: Then why isn’t he doing this?

Mr. Conway: This is a job for a diplomat; we know.

Mr. Ruston: You have the expertise. He just hasn’t got it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am just adding a little extra today, since it is Friday morning and I want --

An hon. member: It’s a good example of how somebody got into trouble.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. As a matter of fact, he did a fantastic job in handling the bill and, in fact --

Mr. Ruston: That is why he is not doing it now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. But we are now just trying to --

Mr. Conway: Crombie never said that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- find a way of providing that the wishes of the people can be expressed and the wishes of the Legislature can be expressed, the two melded together and everyone can be happy. I think we have it here, and I want to thank my friends from the third party, who I think see that this provides the opportunity for --

Mr. Nixon: It’s known as flip-flop.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it isn’t known as flip-flop. It provides the opportunity to have the two municipalities, but also it gives us an opportunity to provide an inexpensive and quick way to have an amalgamation, if such is necessary. It is very simple, as simple as that. I think that personally I would favour the one municipality, but it may be that once the municipalities are constructed, the two of them as are here, and they get going, that is what will remain. They may remain so for a good length of time and this section may never become operative, but it is there if it needs to be used, and I think it is a very wise and prudent thing to add that section to the bill.

Mr. Epp: I just want to say if this is so wise and prudent, I am surprised it wasn’t added into the bill a few days ago when the government has had six years to study it. As I indicated earlier, they were priding themselves on how much studying they had done. Now, two or three days later, they admit publicly their study was not adequate at all and they now have to amend it. It is also a prime example of how the government, if it doesn’t get its way the first time, is prepared to come back to the House as many times as necessary until it gets its way. It gets in bed together with the NDP and gets the kind of things it wants.

Mr. Bradley: Socialist allies.

Mr. Epp: We still have about eight or so bills to consider here and I suppose on any of those, if the government doesn’t get its way, we may be here a little later today until it does get its way.

I want to draw the minister’s attention to one important facet of that particular amendment which I am going to oppose but which I think is very important. As far as the minister is concerned, I think it leaves a loophole to have the reeve not elected by the people in the future. All it says is: “The composition of the council of the new township and the election of the members of council of the new township ...” Taking into consideration the earlier bill we had, we know the government and some of the people in the area did not want the reeve elected by the people at large. They wanted the reeve to have the endorsation of only a few people on council.

Mr. Rotenberg: That was for the first council only.

Mr. Epp: The people would be denied the opportunity of having a say as to who that reeve was going to be. I see, on looking at this amendment it says, “The composition of the council of the new township and the election of the members of the council of the new township...” That would be by order of the minister, so it does not say the reeve would be elected at large. I wonder whether the minister could give assurance that in the future the reeve, as well as the whole council, will be elected by the council.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would agree to that and guarantee that. I feel that is the way it should be. I believe the reeve should be elected. I believe the phrase is, “and the election of the members of the council.” I have always assumed the reeve was a member of a council. I would have assumed there would be no other way we would be doing it but by electing the reeve.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I would not have raised it if it had not been in the earlier bill. I just wanted to make sure that was clear as far as this House was concerned and the people in the archipelago were concerned. I have no further comments.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a suggestion around that this amendment is some kind of compromise. I want to say if this amendment had been before us at the same time as all the other amendments, we would have supported it then as we are prepared to support it now. In fact, the principle of this amendment, that two townships can amalgamate if both the councils vote to do so, is a principle that might well be extended to other parts of the province and perhaps to all parts. Indeed, we might eliminate the need for extensive Ontario Municipal Board hearings when the elected representatives of the people within the municipality agree upon a merger. I have absolutely no problems with the principle of the amendment before us.

I think the situation that has arisen with regard to this bill is an indication of the problems that can arise when attempting to deal with a bill of this magnitude, setting up a new structure of local government, in committee of the whole House rather than in committee outside. We talked about that before on second reading and I must say I think it is unfortunate we have come to this. I hope that in future we will be in a situation where we can properly debate the merits of bills establishing new municipalities or restructuring municipalities so these kinds of problems can be avoided and so we are not forced to deal with things under time pressure and without as much information as we would like.

I also want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in continuing discussions with people who own property in the district of Parry Sound, and especially in the archipelago, although not necessarily in the archipelago township, I have continued to find incredible confusion as to exactly what it is Bill 100 does. I want to reiterate my earlier concerns that the process of public consultation doesn’t seem to have worked properly for two reasons.

One is that the explanatory notes have not been adequate, so people who have received communications from the minister’s staff have really not understood the import of those communications, and have not understood that the maps and other things that were sent out demonstrated that the archipelago municipality as originally proposed, before amendment, was split into two parts and did not take in the whole of the archipelago. There have been some real problems in communication, and I think we will all learn from those for the next time.

[1:00]

There have also been difficulties in terms of who to listen to. The people in the area are difficult to get to, there is no doubt about that, because of the water-based nature of the archipelago. They are difficult to communicate with, because many of them are only seasonal residents and there is the continuing problem of the weight one puts on the voice of permanent residents compared to seasonal residents.

The amendment before us now satisfies a need that, to be honest, I do not fully understand, but I am pleased it satisfies that need and that we will now be able to proceed to third reading of this bill. During the elections that are to take place this fall, I hope the people of the archipelago municipality will give very serious consideration to what is before them so we do not have a situation where the two councils immediately rush into amalgamation.

I know I don’t really need to give them this advice, because I know the people will take it seriously. I think special efforts are going to have to be made, not only by the candidates, but also by the returning officers and enumerators in order to make sure the whole election process that is going to be going on this fall is well understood by the electors of the two archipelago municipalities.

I have just one question and it relates to subsection 2 of the amendment. I have read that a great number of times since we were handed this amendment earlier this morning, and I am still a little unclear as to the intent of subsection 2, given that subsection 1 relates to the amalgamation of the two municipalities and only the two archipelago municipalities. It doesn’t deal with the others.

I don’t understand how the provisions of the part apply with necessary modifications to the amalgamation of one municipality with itself. Perhaps there is some other intent that escapes me.

With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment. We hope the people of the district of Parry Sound, particularly of the archipelago, will learn about what has happened here today and during the past week so that they can get a full understanding of the import of the amendments that have been before us and of the bill that will have been dealt with by the end of the morning, I hope.

It is my impression that in the past they have only been given one side of the story. They have been told: “This is the way to do it. Do you accept that?” I don’t think that is the way these things should be set up. They should have been given access to discussion about all the options available. With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, as time is pressing and although we may not get through the other bills, we will support the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my small contribution to this particular debate. As the member representing the riding of Parry Sound, I have been involved in many of these discussions for the last five or six years. It is, as the member for Wentworth indicated, very difficult to get to all the people to explain what is happening in an area such as the one under debate today.

I believe the amendment as presented to the Legislature this afternoon will go a long way towards solving that very problem. We are respecting the view of the Legislature, the wishes of the Legislature, by forming the two municipalities as the bill indicates, but we are also providing a means for those local property taxpayers, both local and people who are cottagers, to have another discussion on this very important matter before any amalgamation takes place between those two municipalities.

We do not wish to saddle them with a proposition where they would perhaps have to apply to the Ontario Municipal Board for amalgamation at a later date for the cost of that is a great burden. All this amendment really does is simplify a means for those people, if after they have formed their councils and had discussions with their constituents they decide they want to amalgamate, to shorten the procedure for them to do so.

I believe if that decision comes -- it may never come, as the minister has indicated; we don’t know at this point -- but if the decision is taken by the local councils who are elected by those local people to amalgamate, then I believe that it is not only necessary but reasonable to provide the vehicle to allow them to do that without an additional great expense.

I have been told from time to time that the Georgian Bay Association has spent upwards of $50,000 in studies on the archipelago. They are serious about this amalgamation, they are serious about the forming of the archipelago, and they really have done a lot of work towards it.

Among the local people there is a mixed feeling. Certainly the people in the township of Carling are against having one municipality known as the archipelago, and for reasons that in their minds are justified. I don’t agree with their reasons. I met with the council of Carling as recently as a week ago Saturday and advised them I don’t agree with their ideas on it.

I must say that many of the ideas they have have been stirred up by the former candidate in the Liberal Party by the name of Ed Fisher who has continuously gone around the riding stirring up these kinds of things. I think it’s time that it was put on the record that until he has --

Mr. Nixon: You used to say there should be two municipalities; you’ve changed your mind.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I’m not saying there shouldn’t still be. I have not changed my mind. I am supporting --

Mr. Nixon: Is there some law that says Mr. Fisher has to agree with you? What the devil are you talking about? Are you going to send the police after him for voicing another view?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, but I would suspect that it might be a good idea if he got elected first and represented a few people.

Mr. Nixon: He has every right as a citizen and taxpayer to express his views, the same as you.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: He is not a taxpayer in the township of Carling.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order: Is the minister saying that because he is not elected he has not got an opportunity to voice his opinion in the Parry Sound area?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I didn’t hear the minister say that and I don’t really think it’s a point of order.

Mr. Epp: He said he has got other people who shared his view.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, I believe in the right of everyone to speak, so I didn’t say that. However, I have to say that the viewpoints that we have been listening to, particularly from the official opposition, come mostly from the township of Carling. That’s fine; they’re entitled to their viewpoints too, as I indicated earlier in my remarks. I have listened to their viewpoints, I don’t agree with them. If you people do, that’s fine, there’s no argument there, but I have not up to this point in time indicated that I was in favour of not having two municipalities.

What I have said is that probably it is the best way to go. The local people will decide later on whether or not they want to amalgamate and those are the people who should make the decisions. Therefore, I think that the amendment is probably the best solution to the whole thing.

Mr. Nixon: We all say we don’t want to prolong this, but I don’t know; it seems to me an objective observer of this situation would feel that it would require some extensive debate. There are so many things to comment on.

I would begin by saying that while the amendment is, according to the minister who just spoke, the solution to our problems, I don’t have a copy; I believe my colleague does and that’s proper. It’s very difficult, I suppose, to comment with enough intelligence to impress the minister without knowing precisely what the government is doing, other than my understanding of the amendment is that it permits the elected councils to decide whether they will be amalgamated in the future.

I don’t think that’s such a marvellous idea. I’ll tell you I wouldn’t want a bill that allowed the councils of the municipalities in my county to decide on amalgamation, because that is certainly the responsibility either of the people or this House. If you were going to have an election in which a person stands as an amalgamationist or not, maybe democracy serves. But you’ve been saying time and again that you’re not trying to impose some sort of a new kind of governmental structure on these people, but just what they want. The minister got up and said he had a petition signed by 1,000 people, and this was what the people wanted.

Now the other minister gets up and says, “Of course, the people in Carling don’t want it, but I disagree with them.” So, in fact, we’re here in this House, as we should be, making up our minds as to what kind of municipal government is going to have the administrative responsibility in the area that the Minister of Revenue represents.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Carling isn’t in the archipelago.

Mr. Nixon: All right. Having watched the ministrations of this government over a number of years, the people know that it tends to move toward regional government by all sorts of means. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is afraid that the townships are not big enough to be viable. We know the kind of big townships the Conservative government likes. They like regionalized townships. That’s the government’s policy but it’s not our policy.

My colleague, our critic, the member for Waterloo North and our mutual colleague, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I Miller), went up into the area. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk has been a councillor in a regionalized area and he knows what to look out for. The member for Waterloo North has been mayor of a regionalized town and he knows what to look out for.

It’s true they couldn’t go out there and call on all the islands. Some of your friends and supporters, cruising around here in their blue suits this morning, have been expressing their objections to the Liberal stand, saying they never even called on their people. I’m not objecting to that. But I do object to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs telling us that this is what the people want.

When we talk about the township of Carling, they say, “We don’t mean that area. We mean another area.” If it was so important to find out what the people want, you could have had a referendum. I am not saying that you should have. I don’t really go for that approach. But we could have had a committee hearing here and asked those people down.

After all, we were told by the minister they came out in thunderstorms and hailstorms to put their name on some kind of a petition, saying that what the opposition had called for -- and which, by the way, commanded the support of the majority in this House -- was what they didn’t want. They wanted something else.

If this amendment is such a marvellous solution why the devil wasn’t it put in the bill, when the bill was put before us in the first instance? I have no objection to the member for Wilson Heights having the carriage of the bill. I’m not here to criticize him, but I do criticize the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You do?

Mr. Nixon: Yes, I do. He is the Henry Kissinger of the north, the person who is supposed to be the great diplomat. I’ll tell you, Mr. Chairman, maybe it’s a complex bill, but the number of people affected was relatively small. The people affected in a sense were the members of this House.

We had many arguments as to whether this was a step toward regionalizing the area. We were assured by moderate people in our caucus and outside that it was not. But we’ve all got a bigger stake in this than the minister perhaps realizes. The final solution is sort of dumped on our heads, and the poor old House leader, as usual, has to carry these ash cans around for the incompetence of his colleagues.

You could have very well dealt with this in a procedure that would not have ended up in this kind of a debate. I believe the government has handled this in a very awkward way indeed. As for the implication that they are now giving the people of that area just what they want, there is no indication that is so.

From our point of view on this side, we have done the research available to us. We have read the communications from the people from the area, and we have put forward amendments which have established what we consider to be a type of local government that will be in the best interests of the people concerned.

[1:15]

As for me, I suppose, I might have a slight bias in favour of the permanent residents. After all, the people who go into Georgian Bay, to that 30,000 Islands area, have access to the finest recreation area in the world in my view, bar none. For years they have used every measure available to them to see that it did not get too widely distributed. They’ve had many favourable aspects, giving some families for generations access to the best cottage and recreation country that I know of anywhere. So, while we want to be fair to them, I think our primary responsibility is to those who are permanent residents of the area. We don’t want to differentiate between the two, and my colleague has very carefully put forward that our judgement in this means that it is fair to both sides. We have people from both sides commending us for our stance. The idea that you speak only for the people who are right, correct and honest -- and maybe Conservative, I don’t know -- really is very difficult for us to accept.

I believe we have done the best we can with the information we could provide for ourselves. We, at that time, had the support of the NDP. They are now considering otherwise. This amendment is the sort of thing that looks like it’s going to carry. It may very well carry, but we’re not supporting it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Take your blinkers off.

Mr. Nixon: If you handle national unity the way you handled Parry Sound, the country is in peril.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I’ll try to be brief on this, but after the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk spoke I do have to rise to make some comments. As my colleague from Wentworth has already said, we are supporting this bill.

I think it’s no secret that in this party, from the beginning, we had real concern the people in the area, particularly the cottagers, did not have full knowledge that the one municipality was, in fact, two areas separated by the township of Carling. It was our view there would be some wisdom in sending this bill out of the House to a committee where there could be public input. Although this has gone on for six years, it wasn’t until last fall that this proposal was made. It came in the bill last fall and then came again in the bill this spring.

Many of the people had not had the opportunity to determine whether they wanted those two separate areas combined into one area or whether they would like to have them separate. We felt that it should go out to a committee. However, because of the length of time taken in coming to this point and because we had some preference for the two municipalities instead of one, when they were physically separated by the distance which existed, we thought we would go along with the amendment put forward by the Liberal Party. There was only one of what is now two alternatives.

Now there is another alternative which we think meets our concerns and ought to meet the concerns of the Liberal Party. What is really happening now is that it is going to go back to the people in that area. It’s going to meet our first view that it should go out to a committee. It’s going to be established in two municipalities who will have the right to discuss it -- and, believe me, the councils are not going to make an arbitrary decision. I know councils too. I’ve sat on them for a number of years. They’re going to consult with the people and there will be lengthy debates within those municipalities on whether they should become one or two.

We in this party always supported the principle that where there is a community of interest, as there was, the community of interest should be in the municipality. The question was -- when they are 15 miles apart or whatever the case is in that area -- that maybe there should be two municipalities where the residents of those municipalities still have a single community of interest.

Quite frankly, although we are unhappy with the government coming to this position so late in the game -- and you people to my right have a right to complain -- nevertheless I can’t understand the arguments put forward by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk when he says this is going to be an arbitrary decision. He was saying the minister would have the power to make it and there would be no --

Mr. Nixon: I didn’t say that. I haven’t even got a copy of the amendment.

Mr. Swart: The member may not have a copy of the amendment but he took 15 minutes speaking on it. Maybe that is the reason you didn’t fully understand the amendment, because you hadn’t seen a copy of it.

Mr. Ruston: Changing your mind now?

Mr. Epp: Flip-flopping, that’s all you’ve done.

Mr. Swart: If the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is intimating, as he did, that it’s going to be an arbitrary decision made by the minister --

Mr. Epp: In front of all these people you’re flip-flopping.

Mr. Swart: -- I recall that not long ago he was complaining bitterly about the costs of Ontario Municipal Board hearings and even commending the government for looking for some alternative. This may be the kind of alternative you were talking about, where you are giving the minister, which, of course, is the government, the power, after full consultation takes places there and councils pass bylaws, to make the decision on whether it should be amalgamated, so it would not have to go to Ontario Municipal Board hearings and there would be no cost to the public in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Do you want them to have that power in your area? I would think not.

Mr. Swart: I suggest, as the member for Wentworth has already said, that if this proposal had been in the original bill we would have supported the government on it then. We think it largely answers the matter of opposition we had to the bill and therefore we are going to support it. I guess I would just like to conclude by saying once again this rather indicates the value of minority government --

Mr. Epp: Because you can flip-flop.

Mr. Swart: -- because I suggest this is about the best possible solution we could get for this problem.

Mr. G. I Miller: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t going to enter into the debate at this time because I felt we had covered it quite adequately, but since there has been more reference made to our going into the Parry Sound district at the request of some local groups I would like to clarify a couple of points.

There was reference made to the people of Carling township perhaps being the most concerned. I believe they are the most concerned because they do have archipelago land in front of their municipality. As the member is well aware, they have the most to lose, because they feel if those islands are taken away the municipality will move inland and take a considerable strip off of Carling township and it will not be a viable township at that point.

We went there to listen; we weren’t there to take sides. But, as I pointed out in my opening remarks the other day, we wanted to make sure the people there are protected, that the islands are protected and improved and that the relationship between the two improves. As our House leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, indicated -- and he covered the points very well -- we are setting up an organization for future generations. The north is just organizing and the area of Parry Sound is organizing and we are going to have to live with this decision for many years. I think we want to take the right approach.

We were pointing out the fact that under a regional type of government -- which maybe this isn’t, but it could well lead to it -- when you have an area 50 miles long where do you have your administration? How do you get in touch with the local representative? These facts all enter into it. Can you take part in the municipal election? Can you participate as a councillor? In many of the regional governments which have been established, many people have been eliminated from participating and giving their time. I think that is what we are really trying to point out.

Again, I would like to know what the member’s stand is on Carling township. Do you feel that eventually that archipelago land will be put together and the whole area made into one township? I think that is really what the people there are afraid of. I don’t think they want to see that happen. That should be clarified.

I would also point out the member for Wentworth said on Tuesday he didn’t want one large, huge municipality, but today he supports facilitating it for the area and they are just trying to justify it.

Mr. Isaacs: We support local autonomy.

Mr. Epp: You said you did not support the whole municipality and now you are facilitating it. That’s right, you stood right there --

Mr. Isaacs: We support saving money for the taxpayers.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Come back to the amendment, please.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I think the member for Welland-Thorold is also trying to justify the change in the NDP position. We have been consistent from the very beginning. To bring this in, at this particular point in time at this particular sitting, is not justifiable and is not giving enough time for the people to participate.

However, we made our point clear. The government will have to stand on the decision made. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply quickly. We have had an interesting little exchange. I must say, in the last few days and in the last few months the one thing that has bothered me in this House is that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk increasingly resorts to personal attacks in his comments in debate, something few other members of this House do.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe because I said you didn’t handle it well. You have not handled this well and that’s a personal comment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It does him no credit and he knows nothing about what has gone on over the past few weeks or the past few months in this bill. If he would leave it to his members who know something about local government, the whole cause of the debate of this bill would have been better served. I am not going to say any more. I just say it does him no credit.

Let me emphasize this bill is not regional government. Our stand on regional government is well known. I have stated it many times in this House.

Mr. Kerrio: I guess it is.

Mr. Nixon: It’s well known in my riding, I will tell you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is a restructuring bill for the area.

Mr. Kerrio: This is a mini-regional government.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, read the bill, then, read the bill.

In answer to the comment made by the member for Wentworth, the reason for subsection 2 is so those sections in part 1 that pertain to the operation, in this case now the two townships, can also then pertain to the one township if that came about. These sections apply to school taxes, local roads, board matters, the planning area, the area where the meetings may be held and so forth. All those things are made by that section to apply if one municipality comes along.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Wells’ amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 26, as renumbered, agreed to.

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

[1:30]

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

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

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Very briefly, this bill contains four amendments affecting public utility and hydro-electric commissions in the province. One of these changes will permit the resale of water with the permission of municipalities. This will enable commercial water haulers to resell water from a waterworks to a person whose private water supply has been depleted. I would indicate that this is at the request of the Hamilton-Wentworth region mainly.

Another amendment clarifies the wording of the act’s provision conferring a lien on land supplied by a large public utility for up to three months in arrears of utility charges in the same manner as municipal taxes. The bill also proposed to make clear that members of the commission are to be elected by a general vote of electors and that the term of office of the members will be the same as council under the Municipal Act, 1977.

Finally, the bill proposes to remove Ontario Hydro’s responsibility to approve the salary of members of public utility or hydro-electric commissions. These salaries of members will continue to be fixed by municipal council. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Epp: I’ll be brief on this. I just wanted to indicate that I wholeheartedly support some provisions in the bill, particularly the one where the elected PUC officials can determine their own salary. Until now, some bureaucrat in Ontario Hydro could sit up there and say, “Look, you people can’t increase your honoraria by $15 or $100” or whatever, despite the fact that they were elected. This now provides that the bureaucrat at Ontario Hydro cannot have that veto over the increase of the salaries, but the people who are elected by the local citizens will have that particular power. I recommend that section. We will support the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: The provisions of this bill are relatively straightforward. The parliamentary assistant made reference to section 1 being there at the request of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. That’s certainly correct. That municipality has run into problems because of the large amount of water-trucking that’s necessary to serve areas that cannot drill wells, for various reasons, and for which cisterns are the only appropriate method of providing water.

The third section, regarding the election of the public utilities commission, is very straightforward, and we are prepared to support it.

The second section does give us a little bit of concern. When we were dealing with the Line Fences Act a few weeks ago, the government made it clear that it felt that municipalities should not operate as collection agencies. Yet in this bill we’re setting up that municipalities are going to be collection agencies for Ontario Hydro. We believe that’s inconsistent and inappropriate.

Ontario Hydro is in a situation where it can use its own provisions for collecting overdue bills. Municipalities already have a very substantial burden of their own business. We accept that it’s appropriate that they deal with their own outstanding bills and the bills for their hydro-electric or public utilities commissions themselves as if those were taxes; that makes sense because those are local enterprises. But we have great difficulty in understanding why the government wishes to make municipalities bill collectors for Ontario Hydro.

I hope that the parliamentary assistant will be able to give an adequate explanation of that before we proceed to committee stage or third reading on this bill. In other aspects, we see it as a good bill.

Mr. Rotenberg: I would thank the honourable member for his support. I would indicate, on the point brought up by the member for Wentworth, I raised a distinction in the Line Fences Act, and I raise it again, that I felt it was inappropriate for a municipality to be a collection agency for a private person as distinguished from a public utility or from a municipality. Of course, this allows the municipality, the local hydro commission or Ontario Hydro, to collect money in the same way as a municipality can a tax. There is quite a distinction between a public utility using this method and a private person, which is why we feel it is appropriate here and not in the other situation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Mr. Rotenberg: The requirement for this bill is simply that the present Haldimand-Norfolk regional act sets out that a quorum, among other things, shall consist of at least one member from every municipal council. This is different from most regional governments and it was never intended that that quorum provision should be used, in effect, to block the council from governing. Unfortunately, in recent times there has been a controversy in council, and one municipality has been boycotting the council, which makes it impossible for council to govern. However, at a recent meeting of the Haldimand-Norfolk regional council, a resolution was brought forward indicating that regional council does endorse and support Bill 95, and this, I think, is being done to solve a local problem. For that reason, I commend it to the House.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would just like to make a few brief comments on Bill 95. Originally, the provision was established back in 1973, under the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act and at that time it appeared to be a good clause to give protection to all municipalities, because the region of Haldimand-Norfolk does stretch over a wide area and with this provision being established as it was, one municipality could not be railroaded into accepting expenses that weren’t justified. Subsequently, with the development of the new towns and townsite and the agreements that have been drawn up, I understand the township of Norfolk wasn’t satisfied with the way the agreements were being developed with the province and they made comments to this effect. Unfortunately, they withdrew from the council on two occasions and the council, of course, was brought to a standstill. I think it did make recommendations, not from a legally constituted council, but through the chairman, which brought about Bill 95. When we dealt with it a week or so ago the opposition indicated it wasn’t a legal motion from the council and perhaps it should be sent back with that in mind. Consequently, on June 15, that motion was brought forth from the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk recommending a change, and it was supported, not unanimously -- I think it was 13 to six -- that the change should come about and, of course, under those conditions I have no other alternative than to support the bill. It is to be hoped it won’t leave a scar and that the regional council may continue to work successfully in the best interests of the region as a whole. Again, we do support the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will also be very brief. We support the principle of this bill, though we have some very grave concerns about the way it came before this House and about the fact that it is being dealt with in isolation. As the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has indicated, the bill was introduced for first reading prior to the motion being made in Haldimand-Norfolk regional council requesting the bill. We believe that is a very inappropriate way to go.

As was indicated here this morning by the minister, local councils work by bylaw, and unless the resolutions and the bylaws have been put in place I do not believe the government should be acting on requests from municipalities. I think there was a very serious flaw there and I am very pleased that Haldimand-Norfolk council has now accepted this bill; although it was not a unanimous vote, it was a 13 to six vote, and it is my understanding that in the case of at least one municipality both the representatives of that municipality voted against the resolution.

So we still have a situation where it is not the wish of the people, it is the wish of some of the people, and some of the municipalities in Haldimand-Norfolk are imposing their will on another municipality in that same region. That concerns me. It concerns me that we get into this kind of thing without an overview of what is going on in regional council and in regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk.

There have been some requests from people in that region for a review of the regional structure. We know that reviews of regions become very costly and are not necessarily as productive as they should be, but I think it would be appropriate for the government to assist the region in setting up some kind of review so that everything about that region can be looked at. It has been in operation for six years now and everything about the region should be looked at, rather than dealing with just one item as is contained in this bill.

We are concerned, too, about the statements that have been made that the provision that the quorum contain representatives from all municipalities was never intended to be used to block legislation. We have reviewed the reports that were done and the studies that were undertaken prior to the setting up of that regional municipality. We have reviewed the debates, the Hansard, of the time the two bills under which that regional council is set up came before this House and we cannot find any reference to the quorum provision as it relates to requiring all municipalities to be present.

But when one thinks about it, the only purpose for that provision is so that there can be protection for one municipality and that one municipality can block something that regional council wants to do that it disagrees with. There is no other conceivable purpose for such a quorum requirement. It seems to us very inappropriate that the first time one municipality decides to use that provision which was given to it in the bill and it decided to use it on a motion that may well have been of great concern to the government, then the government comes along and says: “We are taking away that provision. We are taking away your right to block a bill in regional council.”

We agree that it is unrealistic to have a quorum requirement of the kind that is specified. Government could not work if, for example, we had a quorum here in this House that required that the member for a riding be present if something was being debated that affected his riding and a decision was to be made on something that affected his riding. Those kinds of things don’t work and it is not a component of our democratic system.

We are very concerned about the way it came before us and we are very concerned that it appears to be yet another example of where, for one reason or another, someone has been attempting to apply some pressure or has realized that a mistake was made when the bill was originally set up, the bill incorporating the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, and yet will not investigate the whole of that bill but will just deal with the one provision that is before us now. We support this reluctantly -- reluctantly because of the way it came here.

[1:45]

Mr. Nixon: I am surprised the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) wouldn’t understand why the resolution from the council supporting the change was not available. The fact is the council was out of commission for a substantial period of time because the representatives from the township of Norfolk would not attend because of the provisions of the requirement for a quorum, and the regional council was really put out of business and could do nothing but lobby on an individual basis.

I, too, regret the fact this amendment is necessary. I believe it was put in the bill in the first instance, and it was a special requirement, simply because the region is so huge and ungainly. It is 80 to 100 miles long, depending on whether you are moving on the back of a crow or trying to get from one end to the other by road. The requirements of the various communities vary tremendously.

The representatives of the township of Norfolk -- which is right over by Tillsonburg, if it helps with the geography of any members who are paying attention -- were simply objecting to the fact that the government of Ontario was urging and pressing to pursue its plan for the development of a new city, the city envisaged by former Treasurer John White, in the area presently known as the city of Nanticoke, which as everyone knows is a rural area.

The concept to go forward was objected to by Norfolk because it felt the provisions for the costing had not been pinned down sufficiently to safeguard the local taxpayers, and since they were many miles from the centre of the proposed new town they wanted to use all the powers within their command to safeguard their own ratepayers. In fact, I believe the process is now going forward, and I, too, regret the fact that this bill is before us.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) is not in his place. I know he objects to my criticizing him, but I do criticize him, and if it is personal perhaps that’s the way it should be. He is a man with large responsibilities. I do believe he might have done more to bring about an amicable settlement of the situation which finally led to the introduction of this bill. Perhaps he did all he could do, but once again, if that is so, in my view it was a failure. The regional municipality has been working as effectively as it could under the circumstances with the quorum provisions as they were before this bill came before us.

The minister chose to introduce the amendment, it has been approved by a majority of the council and it appears that it is now about to pass this House.

Mr. Rotenberg: I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has covered the criticism of how this bill came about. It came about not at the request of the council of the municipality -- because the council, as the member has indicated, was unable to meet; it came about at the request of the chairman with the advice of a majority of council who asked for it, not in a formal way because it couldn’t meet but they asked that this bill be brought forward. It was brought forward for first reading and the council went back and endorsed it. Had we waited until the council met, we might still be waiting.

It seems that no matter which way we do it some members criticize the way we bring in bills. This bill, and most of the bills we are dealing with today, are things that are done at the request of the municipalities. I think we have done the best we could under the circumstances to put this regional council back in business. I thank all the members for their support.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does any member wish to speak on this bill?

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate we are prepared to make an amendment later on.

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order: I believe the member spoke on this bill already during the debate.

Mr. Epp: The Speaker wanted some speakers, so I thought I would oblige.

Mr. Speaker: That applied to members who hadn’t already spoken. I can’t be expected to remember who spoke to every bill. Does any other member wish to speak who hasn’t already spoken?

Mr. Rotenberg: Very briefly, there were some questions raised by the member for Wentworth, and since the questions are on the record I think the answers will have to go on the record.

He asked, with reference to section 9, why ministerial approval would still be required to set up roads narrower than 30 metres. Requirement for ministerial approval of roads exceeding 30 metres is no longer there because other planning approval procedures exist which cover any such planned roads. However, while the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) will retain approval of roads less than 20 metres under the Planning Act, it provides him with the power to delegate responsibility for these roads to municipalities, including regional municipalities.

On section 15 of the bill, delegation of taxation appeals to a municipal council: as a result of consultation with the MLC this morning and other representations, I will be bringing in an amendment to delete section 15 at this time. We will have further consultations with the municipalities to find a way to solve this problem.

The member also raised a question on credit unions. I would point out that section 312 of the Municipal Act, as amended during the fall last year, enables municipalities to invest in credit unions and caisses populaires, as well as in trust companies and chartered banks. This amendment was proclaimed on January 31, 1979. On the same date, section 35 of the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1976 was proclaimed, enabling a municipality to become a member of a credit union under terms and conditions described in the regulations. Amendments now before the House for all future municipalities will extend to them the ability to invest in credit unions.

The member for Wentworth will be making an amendment to section 12, the minimum tax bill. I will deal with that at the time we are in committee of the whole. The member raised the question on the last section of the bill, the minister’s prescribing of French forms and local autonomy, wondering why the minister would prescribe rather than put them in the act. There is a commitment that the minister will prescribe these forms. It is simpler for forms to be prescribed rather than putting them in the act. In the event changes have to be made in the forms from time to time it is much easier to do it that way. There is no question but that these forms will be prescribed and the local municipalities will then have the alternative of using them.

I think that covers the questions raised. I would ask for approval of second reading of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to face up to the clock at the moment. If it is considered wise to get this one finished, we could go into committee and do it, but I have some understanding that to attempt to do much more beyond two o’clock wouldn’t meet with too much support or enthusiasm here at the moment.

The only thing to do would be perhaps to go into committee and do Bill 103 and defer consideration of the others for the fall, unless there are some second readings we could deal with quickly and leave this one. I am cognizant of the fact we only have authority to go to 2 p.m. Her Honour has to come in for royal assent. If there were some of these bills to which we could give quick reading through, fine; otherwise we have to complete by two o’clock.

Mr. Rotenberg: I don’t know how the opposition critics feel, but Bill 104, and the Muskoka bill and the Waterloo bill are three bills which I think can be done fairly quickly and given second and third readings. I have no notice of amendments -- unless the other members object.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There are amendments to Bill 114.

Mr. Rotenberg: On Bills 103, 104 and 116 I have no notice of amendments. We might as well get those done today if we can.

Mr. Epp: If we could stay and deal with these very quickly, I think we could deal with them in the next 20 or 25 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: There was unanimous agreement for this House to sit until two o’clock.

Mr. Rotenberg: The bills I am looking at are Bills 104, 116 and 117; if those bills have no amendments, we could carry those bills.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: If there is no reason for comment, I won’t.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the bill?

Mr. Isaacs: I certainly won’t delay passage of the bill through second reading, but I would have some very serious concerns about this bill receiving third reading and royal assent prior to our dealing with Bill 103, given that it contains some provisions which are similar to those in Bill 103. I would be very reluctant to have us give authority to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in certain areas before we have given it to other municipalities in the province. I will withhold unanimous consent until third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 116, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 117, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act:

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Isaacs: I have an amendment to section 12, Mr. Chairman. I have sent copies to the critic for the Liberal Party and to the parliamentary assistant. I have additional copies here, and I can send those at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Isaacs moves that section 12 be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “12. Section 517(1) of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) The council of any municipality may by bylaw provide that where the sum of the taxes for which any person is chargeable in any year for municipal schools, local improvement and other purposes, upon any real property assessed in one parcel to the same owner, would according to the assessment thereon be less than $10 or such other amount as may be prescribed by bylaw, the sum of such taxes shall be deemed to be $10, or such other amount as determined by council and shall be so entered on the collector’s roll, and the difference between the sum that would have been entered but for this section and the sum of $10 or such other amount as determined by council shall form part of the general funds of the municipality.”

Mr. Isaacs: The purpose of this amendment is to permit local councils to decide the amount of the minimum tax bill. We feel the matter of property taxation is something that is now firmly within the purview of local councils. It seems to us to be quite inappropriate that the intervention of the minister is necessary in order to set the amount of the minimum tax bill that shall be levied in any municipality.

The situation does not arise very frequently, according to some checking I’ve done, but there are certain municipalities in which there are a multitude of owners of very small parcels of land. It’s in that circumstance that a minimum administrative cost has to be recovered through the tax bill. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the municipality to determine the amount of that minimum administrative cost.

[2:00]

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, as of now the municipality can set the minimum. The government has set the maximum of $6. We’re saying the maximum minimum will be $10 and underneath that amount the municipality can do whatever they want. We do want to give the municipalities the right to set the minimum tax bill at $50 or $100 or whatever they might do.

The reason for the point of having the minister involved is that if at some future date because of inflation we want to raise the maximum minimum to $15 or $20, the minister can then do that by order without having to come back to the House. If that part is not acceptable I can withdraw that, but we do not want to give the municipalities the right to set a minimum tax bill as high as they want to. They can set it as low as they want and the bill sets the maximum the minimum can be. Therefore, I don’t support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 15 of the bill be struck out and that sections 16, 17 and 18 be numbered as sections 15, 16 and 17 respectively.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 15, 16 and 17, as renumbered, agreed to.

Bill 103, as amended, reported.

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

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion.

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 260 standing on the Notice Paper.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I have permission of the House to revert to motions very briefly?

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing administration of justice committee, the standing resources development committee and the standing general government committee meet on the morning of October 10, 1979, for the purpose of considering estimates: The standing administration of justice committee, estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations; the standing resources development committee, estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources; the standing general government committee, estimates of the Office of the Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some confusion, but just before I go for the Lieutenant Governor, I don’t wish people to feel under undue pressure but it was my understanding when I called second reading of Bill 104, the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) made it quite clear they wanted some opportunity to think about it and would deny us unanimous consent to go to third reading so they left it in committee of the whole. Is that now changed? Can we now carry Bill 104?

It’s in committee, so we could just quickly go into committee of the whole House and come back and give it third reading; is that what members wish?

Agreed.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to Bill 104?

Bill 104 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just before adjournment we would like to bring Her Honour into the House to consider royal assent for a number of bills.

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to remind the House that before I got here I got paid on a mileage basis.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps the Speaker would recognize some of the procedures today, being an old railroad man -- or rather a railroad man.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Pray be seated.

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

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

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Trees Act;

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

Bill 80, An Act to amend the Veterinarians Act;

Bill 81, An Act to amend the Hunter Damage Compensation Act;

Bill 82, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act;

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act;

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act;

Bill 95, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973;

Bill 96, An Act to amend the Planning Act;

Bill 99, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act;

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

Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act;

Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal Act;

Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Judicature Act;

Bill 112, An Act to amend the County Judges Act;

Bill 113, An Act for the establishment and conduct of a Project in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for the development of improved methods of processing certain Civil Actions;

Bill 116, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 117, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974;

Bill 119, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Halton;

Bill 123, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Durham;

Bill 131, An Act respecting the Village of Point Edward;

Bill 133, An Act to repeal the Income Tax Discounters Act, 1977;

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Police Act;

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act;

Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act;

Bill 142, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (2nd Session);

Bill 163, An Act to reform the Law respecting Residential Tenancies;

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Massey Hall;

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive The January School as Montcrest School;

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the Trustees of Windsor Grove Cemetery.

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

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

TYNWALD MILLENNIUM

Mr. Speaker: Before leaving here for the summer recess, may I take this opportunity to thank all members for their co-operation and to thank the staff of the assembly on behalf of the members for their assistance during the first part of the session. I hope that everyone will have a pleasant summer and that we will all safely return to this chamber in October.

I am sure the House will be interested in a significant event which will take place on July 5. We often refer to the Parliament of Westminster as the Mother of Parliaments in respect for its long tradition. However, the grandmother of Parliaments, the Tynwald, on the Isle of Man, will on July 5 celebrate its 1,000th anniversary. The millennium will be marked by celebrations at which Speakers from all around the world will attend, and I am honoured to be able to join in these ceremonies. I know that I take the good wishes of this House to the people of Man on this significant occasion.

Once again, I wish all of you a very pleasant summer. This House stands adjourned until Thursday, October 11, at 2 p.m. pursuant to the order passed earlier today.

The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.