Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the members opposite and of my colleague from Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling). I appreciate the comments that have been made, many of which I agree with and some of which I don’t agree with entirely.

At this point, I would like to confine my remarks to those matters which are within the scope of the bill. Many of the remarks that were made from across the floor, interesting as they might have been, really did not deal with the bill itself but with the whole principle of regional government, which is an interesting debate. Hopefully, some time in the future, we’ll have a most interesting debate on the philosophy of regional government.

The bill we have before us this evening is a bill which, in effect, does a lot of housekeeping and makes some changes in the regional governments of this province, but does not deal with the basic philosophy of regional government or the heart of the matter.

I’d like to deal individually with some of the comments that members opposite made. I will probably deal with these in more detail when we get into committee of the whole House, if necessary. Possibly, some of the remarks I may make may answer the questions raised and may make it so that we will not require a committee of the whole House on all of the items.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) raised the problem of interest rates. In June, when we put it in for the municipal governments and for Metropolitan Toronto, 1.25 per cent seemed reasonable. He seemed to indicate that the events of May 22 had a lot to do with the rise in interest rates in this country.

Mr. Epp: I’ll buy that.

Mr. Rotenberg: I think that’s not quite true. Interest rates in this country, unfortunately, have a habit of following the interest rates in Washington and Wall Street for whatever reason. In this particular case, we all must realize and recognize that we are not totally in control of our destiny.

I must apologize to the member for Waterloo North if I indicated to him that the boundary change in his region was a request from the member. I didn’t mean it that way. If it sounded that way, I apologize. It was a request from the two municipalities of Kitchener and Waterloo and it was the member who did ask that that request be accelerated. I accept that correction from him.

There was the question of why debentures for some machinery were for five years and for other machinery were for 10 years. I think he had the answer himself in that road machines and roadbuilding machines are built to last much longer and, therefore, have much longer than a 10-year life. That is why debentures on a 10-year machine are allowed there but for other machinery they are only for five years.

The one criticism which I think the member for Waterloo North brought forward, which isn’t correct, was that all regions have to be uniform. If all regions were uniform, we’d have one regional act and one act for all the regions. We wouldn’t need to have 10 separate acts and 10 separate sections.

Many of the points that are in this act are mentioned within the Municipal Act and, therefore, are general for all municipalities, and these should be in the regions. Certainly, there is a lot of local difference and a lot of local autonomy. The philosophy we have adopted as a government on this side of the House when a regional government brings forward a request for a change in its particular legislation is that if the request is reasonable and is not contrary to government policy -- if it’s something that’s not going to be totally harmful to the residents -- we feel that the regional people who are elected are a government and, within reason, we should try to fulfil their requests.

I would like to thank the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), the New Democratic critic, for his comments. I would also like to comment on several things he brought forward.

Section 26 gives the minister the same authority for regions that he now has under the Municipal Act; when a request for a change in boundaries or a change in ward systems comes to the Ontario Municipal Board, the OMB refers it to the minister. I would point out, first, that in practice the OMB is doing this anyway, even though technically it doesn’t have to. The point about it is simply that the OMB refers it to the minister so he will know what’s going on. If there is some legislation or something else in the works which would pre-empt the OMB hearing, the OMB certainly should know about it.

It does not preclude -- and I stress this point -- a region, even if it’s under study, from coming to the Ontario Municipal Board and asking for a change in boundaries or a change in its ward system. It is, as one reads it, permissive for the minister: he may interfere; it doesn’t say the minister must interfere.

As a case in point, various members in the Ottawa region have discussed the fact that they still have a study. It hasn’t been finalized and concluded. Yet we are now, as I will discuss in a few minutes, looking after a request from Nepean to change its system because of a change in the status. There’s a possibility, as I will mention in a few minutes, that the region of Ottawa will be asking for some change in its representation. Certainly that can go forward at the municipal board or at this level. It will not be precluded.

That section 26, as it is in the Municipal Act now, is simply permissive and doesn’t require the minister to interfere.

When one mentions insurance, one gets sort of a knee-jerk reaction from the third party. As soon as one mentions the word “insurance,” suddenly they think there’s something not quite proper going on. I really don’t understand. Certainly all municipalities, non-regions, have the right to buy liability insurance. Everybody else buys it. Municipalities buy car insurance, fire insurance, all kinds of insurance which are far more expensive than liability insurance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The assembly has insurance for you, does it?

Mr. Rotenberg: Oh, yes, I’m insured. I’ll be here for many years to come.

What is this? This is permissive insurance. If a municipality wishes to buy insurance, it may buy liability insurance. If a municipality wishes to be self-insured, it may be self-insured. If a municipality wishes to pick up the liability of a member of its council, it may do so.

There have been many times when the municipalities have picked up the money, either though insurance or otherwise, of a member of the council that was sued for libel. Probably one of the most famous cases, almost 30 years ago now, involved the then mayor of Toronto. If you remember, he was sued for $40,000. In the early 1950s, $40,000 was a lot of money. A judgement was given against then Mayor Lamport, because he accused someone of trafficking in taxi licences, and city council asked to be allowed to pay the money. They came to this Legislature for a special act, and the city of Toronto paid that money. It would have been an awful lot cheaper for the taxpayers of the city of Toronto if they had had insurance.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why don’t you legislate protection instead of giving public funds to the insurance companies?

Mr. Rotenberg: In this Legislature we have privilege while we are in this building. But if we walk outside to that rally or go down the street or to our ridings and say something, we can be sued.

Mr. Foulds: Walk outside the doors of this chamber and you can be sued.

Mr. Rotenberg: It’s a question of whether or not this assembly is somewhat different from local council. The point I make, and the key point, is that a municipal council, if it wishes, should be allowed to pay the liability of a member of council because of an act while he is a member. A municipal council, if it wishes to, should be allowed to buy insurance. I think I’d point out to the member for Wentworth that in the total insurance package of any person, including municipalities, liability insurance is a very small amount of premium.

The member for Wentworth also raised the problem of tax penalties between municipalities. He says, and I would agree with him, that municipalities should be responsible if the local council doesn’t pay the regional council the money on time. They just should. If the regional council doesn’t pay back the local council on time, yes, they should. But there are, I guess once in a while, local councils which aren’t totally responsible. If a local council does not fulfil its responsibility, does not make its payments --

Mr. Foulds: It’s similar to the way the Ministry of Education withholds its grants from the boards of education.

Mr. Rotenberg: -- then it would seem to me that council should pay its bills on time. If it doesn’t, the taxpayers in the receiving municipality should not have to suffer.

Mr. Foulds: Absolutely.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Where’s the minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rotenberg: If a region, let us say, doesn’t pay the money to the local municipality, the citizens of that local municipality in effect are losing interest at the bank, and they shouldn’t do because of the irresponsibility. That is why, again, I feel this interest should be charged between councils.

The member for Wentworth also raised a problem about section 16, where it says the minister may prescribe bilingual forms. The word “may” rather than “shall,” which the member for Wentworth would prefer, is simply what the counsel drafted. I would say to the member, because he has asked me, that I will give my commitment, and the commitment of the minister who has authorized me to give this commitment, that the minister will produce these forms; that is, in effect, those forms will be produced. It is still up to the regional municipality whether or not it uses the forms, as the second section says, but there is no question this will be done by the ministry.

The other problem the member for Wentworth had was the little part about Nepean and allowing the minister to make an order about how Nepean people get on the Ottawa-Carleton regional council. The reason that is done and that it’s not in the legislation is that we are not sure of the structure of the Nepean council for the next election. When they were elected for this term they had a reeve and a deputy reeve, and they, along with the councillor who had the most votes, became the three representatives. There still will be three representatives, unless there is a change in the overall system.

We don’t know whether or not Nepean wants to go to a ward system. If Nepean does not go to a ward system, the representatives would probably be the mayor, who would automatically be on it, and the two councillors who poll the highest votes in an at-large election. If they go to a two-ward system, with two aldermen per ward, it would be those with the most votes in each ward.

In effect, we are doing this in advance without hearing from Nepean as to how they are going to run their municipality and how they are going to run the next election. We are simply leaving it flexible. It probably would be better if it were in the legislation, but by leaving it flexible, when we find out what Nepean will do, we can go one way or the other. But, in effect, it will be in accordance with the desires of the city of Nepean.

The last point the member for Wentworth made -- and here I agree with him -- was about regional transit. Again, certainly the regions should be in the transit business. Certainly the regions should be responsible.

Mr. Bradley: Not the Niagara region.

Mr. Rotenberg: Well, the Hamilton-Wentworth region is, and certainly in Metro they are. I would simply say to the member for Wentworth that we can write the permissive legislation allowing the regions to run a responsible transit system; we cannot, unfortunately, legislate responsibility on behalf of municipal councils, or even for members of this Legislature.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) brought up a couple of points, and I see he has filed an amendment as far as sections 23 and 24 of this bill are concerned.

Section 23 gives the regional municipality -- in this case the regional municipality of Niagara, but he will notice this applies also to several other municipalities where there is a split sewer system; it applies to the municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton, York and Waterloo. It is already in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

The purpose of section 23 in this bill is to give the region, which treats the sewage, the right to tell the area municipality, which collects the sewage, what cannot be in the sewage. In other words, if a plant has a certain kind of effluent, a dangerous chemical which might gum up the sewage disposal plant and so on, the regional municipality, which has control of the sewage disposal plant, can say to an area municipality, “You cannot put this type of chemical into the sewage system.”

Mr. Conway: Whatever you say.

Mr. Rotenberg: I am glad I have the agreement of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), because his colleague wasn’t all that happy about the thing and his colleague has filed an amendment to delete this section.

Mr. Roy: Have you responded to my comments yet?

Mr. Rotenberg: Yes. The member for Ottawa East was late. I gave him a chance to speak earlier. It was very nice of him to drop in today. It is unusual to see him in both the afternoon and the evening. If I had known he were coming, I would have waited for him.

Getting back to section 23, I would hope the member for Erie and the other members of that party would consider simply that this power has to be given to the region so that certain types of effluent cannot be put into the sewage system by the local municipalities.

Mr. Haggerty: The region can allow it, though.

Mr. Rotenberg: The region has to be able to control what goes into a sewage disposal plant because, otherwise, chemicals which could gum up the works could come in through the local sewer system.

Mr. Haggerty: The regions have too much power now. They will gum up anything.

Mr. Rotenberg: As far as section 24 is concerned, it applies basically to the capital cost of the sewage system, and the amount of money that goes in for other things is not really affected. I will deal with that in more detail later when we get to the amendment put by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

Finally, both the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) and the member for Carleton Grenville were discussing with us the problems of the representation in the Ottawa region.

[8:15]

Mr. Foulds: I can see why those two members would raise the problem of representation for the Ottawa region.

Mr. Rotenberg: The honourable members must have had something in their dinner tonight. They were so quiet before dinner, but now they can’t control themselves.

Mr. Bradley: They used to be quiet about regional government too until they discovered it was an issue.

Mr. Rotenberg: At least I am glad they are listening.

As I say about Ottawa, there is a move afoot in the Ottawa council to have a move on their own, possibly -- I use the word “possibly” -- to make a request to us to change the representation. There may be some value in changing the numbers on the Ottawa regional council. But certainly before we would move on it, we would like at least to hear the views of the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton. We may not agree with them. Whether or not they report we will not commit the government. I’m not saying we will make these changes in representation, but certainly it will be something that will be considered.

These cover, I believe, the major points that were raised by the members of the opposition. I know there are various points they want to raise in more detail as we go into committee of the whole.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Tell us about regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Rotenberg: I have indicated there is one technical amendment I will be making. Therefore, I would ask now that we put second reading; I would hope all members of the House will support it and then I would ask that we go into committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Isaacs: I just want to clarify the comments the parliamentary assistant made a moment ago. Is he giving us a commitment from the minister that the minister’s order will comply exactly with the wishes of the city of Nepean? If there should be any objection from regional council in Ottawa-Carleton, is he saying that objection will be ignored and representation on Ottawa-Carleton regional council from Nepean will be exactly as per the city of Nepean’s wishes?

Mr. Rotenberg: I have to hedge a little on that.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Here we go, the old straightshooter from Wilson Heights.

Mr. Rotenberg: The honourable member is really on tonight. I am wondering why the honourable members aren’t at the rally outside tonight; that’s where all the noise is. Here we are trying to do business.

I say to the member for Wentworth, the act reads as follows: “two aldermen of the city of Nepean, to be selected in accordance with the order of the minister.” If Nepean comes back and says it wants three aldermen plus the mayor, we wouldn’t necessarily go along with that. They want more representation. In other words, we are saying two aldermen will more than likely be selected the way Nepean wants it.

There are only two ways they can go: If they have two wards, it will be the leading alderman in each ward. If they don’t have the ward system, it will be the two top pollers. I can’t see any other way.

If it’s either of those two, yes, we will go along with Nepean’s wishes. If they come up with some other method which is quite contrary to government policy and something we would deem to be unfair, I can’t guarantee we would go along with that. If it’s one of those two, which are the only ones I can foresee, we will go along with it.

That’s answering the question as best I can. I stress, of course, if they want a third member -- which they do -- that has to be dealt with in the context of the total council.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Isaacs: I get the impression from the parliamentary assistant’s comments a moment ago this section can be used purely at the minister’s discretion to block any request for ward changes or for representation changes by any municipality within a regional council.

I had understood previously it was intended the minister would indicate to the Ontario Municipal Board that an inquiry into structural organization or methods of operation, et cetera, is going on in advance of the request coming forward from the municipality. I get the impression from the parliamentary assistant’s comments this prerogative is to be exercised after a municipality has applied to the OMB for a change in its ward boundaries or representation.

If that is the case, it seems to me to be handing to the minister a veto on any municipality within a region making any changes to its boundaries. I don’t see that ought to be our role, and it certainly oughtn’t to be the minister’s role. I would like some clarification on that.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is the final authority in all of this business.

Mr. Rotenberg: I am sorry if I wasn’t clear. “When the minister is inquiring” -- that’s the way it reads right now -- “when the minister is inquiring into the structural organization.” If someone in Durham region, for instance, goes to the municipal board -- there is no inquiry going on in Durham region now -- the minister is not going to interfere. It is when an inquiry is already in progress that the minister has the discretionary right, in effect, to stay it at the OMB, pending the result of the minister’s inquiry.

Mr. Isaacs: Where are inquiries going on at the moment that would cause the minister to exercise this kind of action? Is there an inquiry going on in Hamilton-Wentworth? Is there an inquiry going on in Cambridge? Is there an inquiry going on in Niagara? All these places have had inquiries that are still incomplete, and I am unclear as to what it means by saying “when the minister is inquiring.”

Mr. Rotenberg: The only inquiries that may be considered going on, those which are still outstanding, are Niagara, Metropolitan Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton, where there were some reports which still hadn’t been finalized. Those may or may not be considered inquiries. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other inquiries going on in any of the regions.

Mr. Bradley: There is something going on in Niagara now. Somebody is carrying out an inquiry.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Is the parliamentary assistant saying the inquiry process in Hamilton-Wentworth is at an end and this section therefore is no longer applicable in the Hamilton-Wentworth region?

Mr. Epp: You can’t mean that, because an inquiry is a formal thing. You can’t just be asking questions of them and then go on like that.

Mr. Rotenberg: I don’t think there has been a formal inquiry into the Hamilton-Wentworth region. I may be mistaken. I can check with staff and make sure. I will answer that question in a moment.

Mr. M. N. Davison: During this pause, could the parliamentary assistant explain the difference between a review and an inquiry?

Mr. Rotenberg: The practice has been -- it has been in the Municipal Act for many years, and it would apply to the regions -- that when an application comes to the Ontario Municipal Board, the board automatically writes to the minister. They were doing it under the Municipal Act because that act says that’s what they should do. They have been doing it somewhat informally under the regional acts when, say, they have an application for a ward change or a boundary change or something, by asking, “Is your ministry having an inquiry, or is something pending?” If nothing is pending in the ministry, the minister writes back: “Yes, go right ahead.”

If there is an inquiry going on -- I can’t think of a recent example where there was a structural change going on in a municipality, but if there is a municipality whose boundaries are in the process of being changed through the ministry, then the minister would report back to the OMB that an inquiry is going on and something is happening, and then the OMB might order a stay.

This doesn’t prevent the OMB from eventually hearing the inquiry, if it is not covered by legislation, because it gives the minister the power to stay the inquiry but not to stop the inquiry.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I would really appreciate an answer from the parliamentary assistant. If it takes a couple of minutes for the staff to check through and inform him, that’s all right. Is there or is there not for the purposes of this section an inquiry taking place, or what is the stage of an inquiry, in Hamilton-Wentworth? If there is an inquiry, how does anybody know about it? Secondly, what is the difference between a review and an inquiry? Thirdly, when does the process end and how does one know whether or not it has ended?

If the parliamentary assistant would like to take a few minutes for somebody to sort that out, that’s all right.

Mr. Rotenberg: I think I have answered the question, but to get you a most definitive answer and see what you want, we can stand that down for the moment while I get you the answer.

Mr. Mancini: Stop being so arrogant. Just answer the question. He is the only parliamentary assistant I know who can strut sitting down.

Mr. Rotenberg: I think the simple answer to the question of the member for Hamilton Centre is that there is not an inquiry now going on in Hamilton.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What about the real answer?

Mr. Rotenberg: The real answer is there is not an inquiry going on in Hamilton now.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What is the difference between an inquiry and a review? How does the process end and when does it end?

Mr. Rotenberg: I don’t think the review process ever ends.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What is the difference between an inquiry and a review? Does that mean that a review is always going on and, therefore, this section is always in place in a case like Hamilton-Wentworth?

Mr. Rotenberg: No, I would say it is not always in place in Hamilton-Wentworth or anywhere else.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What is the difference between an inquiry and a review? If the review process never ends, and we have a review going on in Hamilton-Wentworth, then why in Hamilton-Wentworth is this section not always in place? Is the parliamentary assistant not saying that the minister always has a veto in a case like Hamilton-Wentworth? That’s what it sounds like to me.

Mr. Rotenberg: To put it very simply, the minister in effect always has the power, with or without this legislation, to take this kind of a hearing out of the hands of the municipal board. If the minister in his wisdom wishes to legislate a change, the minister can do so. As you know, changes in ward boundaries and so on normally go to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. M. N. Davison: By what process without this section? By orders in council, by regulation, by legislation?

Mr. Rotenberg: The minister or the ministry can by legislation at any time legislate some changes in boundaries and so on. You are getting kind of technical. The basic purpose of the section is that if there is legislation pending, then it would seem normal for the matter not to go to the Ontario Municipal Board. This has been in the Municipal Act for a long time and we have never had any complaints about it. You seem to be suddenly uptight about the fact that the minister in the normal course of his duties might pre-empt an OMB hearing, which happens all the time.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I don’t know if we are going to get any answers. What I am uptight about, what I am worried about and what I am concerned about, is that you don’t even understand your own legislation and you can’t explain it in the House. There is something seriously wrong over there.

Mr. Bradley: I am going to direct a similar question to the parliamentary assistant, specifically to find out what is going on in Niagara at the present time before I would agree to pass this particular section.

[8:30J

There is something going on. Somebody is asking questions down at the region. I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) during his estimates just who was asking the questions and if there is some kind of review, inquiry or whatever going on involving people from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, or for that matter any other branch of the provincial government. Somebody’s asking questions down there; questions designed to tell us the virtues of regional government.

That questionnaire should be very short and involve a very short review, if that’s what they’re doing. Is it a public relations firm that the region has hired to make them look good or is the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs of the provincial government doing the same?

Mr. Mancini: It’s a Tory PR firm, that’s what it is.

Mr. Bradley: Or are they taking polls?

Mr. Sterling: Is the member against regional government?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I am.

Mr. Rotenberg: If the member is against regional government, that’s an honest opinion; we can have an honest difference of opinion on that.

Mr. Foulds: Trouble is the Liberal Party doesn’t think it is.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I do respect the opinions of my colleagues on the opposite side of the House. I don’t agree with them all the time, but they’re of course entitled to have a difference of opinion; that’s probably why they’re sitting over there.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not exactly sure what is going on in the Niagara region, but there are from time to time in all regions and municipalities members of the ministry staff looking into the financial operations of the various governments simply to have an ongoing idea of what is going on. This is not done just in the regions, it’s done throughout the province from time to time.

To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think there’s anything special going on in Niagara at this time that would be different from a normal review.

Mr. Bradley: Would the parliamentary assistant undertake to provide me with something in writing that would tell me what is going on? I realize it may take further consultation with his officials to determine just what is going on in terms of the provincial government in its relationship to the regional government in terms of a review of some kind.

Mr. Foulds: I thought the member was from the region.

Mr. Bradley: Somebody’s asking the senior civil servants and other people questions down there about regional government. You seem to be implying that does not fit into this bill and therefore it doesn’t fit the provisions of this specific section of the act. I’m prepared to take the word of the minister on that, but I’m wondering what is going on down there.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, to the member for St. Catharines, in my role as parliamentary assistant I’m not in any way involved in whatever is going on down there. There’s no question as far I’m concerned; I will have a note to the minister tomorrow to ask him to inform the member as to what is happening. I think that it is a reasonable request.

But to the best of my knowledge -- and I always have to qualify to the best of my knowledge -- anything that is going on down there is not in the nature of an inquiry which would apply to this section.

Mr. Isaacs: The parliamentary assistant indicated earlier that the minister could do whatever he wanted when a municipality came to the OMB. I just don’t accept that, Mr. Chairman.

The minister can only do what legislation permits him to do, but it seems to me that the problem with this section is that if a municipality like Stoney Creek comes along and says, “We want to change our ward boundaries,” or a municipality like Hamilton comes along and says, “We want to abolish our board of control,” the minister can say, “No, you can’t, because I’m going to have an inquiry instead.” That just doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of discretion the minister should have.

He should announce the inquiry as a thing that is going to happen so that municipalities know that it’s a waste of their time coming forward, rather than the minister being given these very broad and very vague powers of veto.

Mr. M. N. Davison: They’re vague all right.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I never implied the minister can do anything he wants. Of course he can bring in legislation with the consent of the House; I indicated that the minister can, from time to time, bring in legislation. It has happened, and in certain situations does pre-empt any hearing before the municipal board in this and many other sections of the Municipal Act.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the member for Wilson Heights would assure this House that if the interest rate continues to rise at the rate it is currently rising the government will bring in an amendment fairly quickly to help compensate the municipalities so municipalities can charge one and a half per cent per month, or 18 per cent per year, on unpaid tax bills, and this will not be dragged out over the next or three years.

As the member knows, the municipalities should not be in a position where they are in a sense subsidizing delinquent taxpayers who can be delinquent in their payments and at the same time be saving money.

Mr. Ashe: Always concerned about the little guy over there.

Mr. Epp: Hansard will so record.

Mr. Rotenberg: The maximum permissible rate now is one and a quarter per cent per month or 15 per cent per year. I would not give the assurance the member requests. If interest rates go up, I would be reluctant to charge taxpayers something more than 15 per cent on delinquent taxes.

There are really two kinds of delinquent taxpayers. The kind the member referred to are those who might take advantage of a situation by, in a sense, borrowing money from a municipality at 15 per cent, as they might feel it is cheaper than borrowing it elsewhere -- corporate people, for instance -- and the member wants to get around that.

Fifteen per cent is pretty high. The prime rate isn’t up to that yet. I am worried about the smaller taxpayer, the poor person, who because of whatever squeeze cannot pay his taxes. I wouldn’t want to raise the interest rate beyond 15 per cent at this time, so I could not give the member that assurance.

Mr. Mancini: The Tories have no concern for the poor.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Isaacs: For your information and for that of the Liberal critic, Mr. Chairman, I had previously circulated an amendment. As we have an assurance from the parliamentary assistant, and through him from the minister that the forms will be produced in a bilingual format, I don’t think the amendment is necessary.

Section 16 agreed to.

Sections 17 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 23:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by deleting sections 23 and 24.

Mr. Bradley: Speaking to the amendment with regard to section 23, I am extremely concerned that the region would assume any more powers within the regional municipality of Niagara. What is desired in this particular section of the bill can be accomplished through co-operation between the various area municipalities and the regional municipality of Niagara. It does not require legislation which would have the region dictate what shall be flowing from area municipality sewers into the regional sewers, given the silly situation that there are such things as regional sewers.

Some of our municipalities are very concerned about this. I remind the parliamentary assistant had they had the opportunity to know this bill was coming before the Legislature today they likely would have analysed the bill carefully and commented, and perhaps been in a position to be more supportive; but they could not be in this position.

I move this amendment to delete recognizing the subject matter of this section can be accomplished in other ways.

I would also mention I am certain the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and officials of that ministry would be prepared to intervene if they felt the kind of discharges that would be taking place in the city sewer systems were adversely affecting the water supply into which those fluids or other things would be flowing. The provisions contained in the section referred to are, in my opinion, unnecessary as part of the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: There are two distinct provisions contained in this bill. The first is to give regional council the power to control what goes into the regional sewer system, and I really don’t see a major problem with that. The regional council is going to be dealing with the sewage that is in the system and it is, after all, a situation where regional council is prohibiting the discharge of certain material rather than permitting discharge. Seeing as we start from a situation where absolutely anything can be put into a sewer system, and regional council and the area municipal councils --

Mr. Conway: It looks like an election campaign.

Mr. Isaacs: -- are going to be saying these things cannot be put into our sewer systems because our sewage treatment plants cannot deal with them, it really doesn’t make any sense to me to remove that provision and to remove the power of regional council to deal with the effluent going into regional sewage treatment plants.

We can’t support the deletion of section 23.

With regard to section 24, one gets into a very fundamental discussion of regional government and whether one believes that as a concept regional government is worth having, or whether we should have a mix of 840 municipalities right across this province each doing their own thing without regard to the effect of that action on their neighbours.

I can understand the concerns the lower tier municipalities have with regard to the removal of this right of appeal. On the other hand, if we had a situation where regional government was working harmoniously, where the battles were not going forward and where everybody within Niagara and any other regional municipality was working for the best interests of that region and of the province of Ontario, I don’t think there would be any dispute at all about this kind of provision.

Therefore, we cannot support the amendment, though we certainly understand the sentiment that lies behind it, because regional government is in such a mess at the present time in every one of the 10 regions suffering under it.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to the amendment put forward by the member for St. Catharines, deleting sections 23 and 24. I’m rather surprised that the member for Wentworth would not support the amendment when he ends his speech by saying regional government is in a mess and the intent of the amendment is to correct the mess that may exist in the regions. It doesn’t cost the region a penny, it doesn’t cost the government a cent and it doesn’t cost the local municipality a cent, so I can’t figure out why someone would not support it.

It’s a good amendment. I think the reasons given by the member for St. Catharines are sound as they relate to section 23, where there is a conflict between a bylaw passed under subsection 2 by the regional council and a bylaw passed by the council of an area municipality under paragraph 129, subsection 1 of section 354 of the Municipal Act.

The bylaw passed by the regional council prevails to the extent of such conflict, but in all other respects the bylaw of the area municipality remains in full effect and force. If the bylaw remains in full effect and force in a municipality why must there be an additional bylaw, another law applying at the regional level?

I’m sure if someone is dumping municipal waste into the regional sewer system or treatment plant, the Ministry of the Environment would have more of a voice and more control in this particular area.

I was going to speak on section 7 of the act, but the subject also comes up in section 23, where the parliamentary assistant’s comment previously was that it was there to protect the region so that certain chemical wastes would not be dumped into a municipal sewer system by a local industry making use of the existing sewer system.

Of course it can work the other way too. The region may permit a certain amount of noxious municipal waste to be dumped into a sewer system or treatment plant without the local municipality knowing what is going on.

[8:45]

I suggest that before the parliamentary assistant accepts this amendment he should see the recent report put out by Brock University. It was a study made by a group of students this summer relating to municipal waste disposal. It’s not too complimentary to the existing controls, or even to the Ministry of the Environment or to the regional municipal public works department. There are problems there; there is talk of mercury and other dangerous chemicals being dumped into our water and streams throughout the Niagara region, particularly in -- what do you call it?

Mr. Bradley: Twelve Mile Creek.

Mr. Haggerty: Twelve Mile Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek, Twenty Mile Creek -- you name it. Even the Welland Canal is loaded with it. Whether this may be a catch-all whereby the region can cover up much of it, I don’t know, but I would have this removed under section 24 as it relates to deleting this particular section.

If I can recall the original Niagara bill, there’s a section under that act that permits the regional council to assess or fix a cost for municipal sewers across the whole region, that is storm sewers or any public works. My position on council has always been that those who receive the benefit should pay for it. Under this section it would permit them to charge the whole area.

I don’t have to tell you the difficulty in just changing the equalization factors and the effect it would have on rural municipalities in the Niagara region. That apportionment cost alone has caused, and will cause, difficulties to rural municipalities, although the minister has come in with an ad hoc program to say the government would forestall it for another year and would only let the equalization factor rise by another five per cent. After that, in 1981, you will see that the apportionment cost for services within the region will be a tremendous cost to all rural municipalities in the Niagara region.

Mr. Sterling: Do you want to freeze the old factors?

Mr. Haggerty: The recent equalization factors?

Mr. Sterling: Yes.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s right, the recent increases.

Mr. Chairman: Order; the member for Erie has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: The point is that if this section was adopted it would give the regional council more power to apply different service costs throughout the region --

Mr. Bradley: Is the member for Carleton Grenville for that?

Mr. Haggerty: -- regardless of whether they’re receiving that service or not.

Mr. Mancini: The member for Carleton Grenville is for that.

Mr. Haggerty: I would support deleting sections 23 and 24. As the member for St. Catharines said, I had an opportunity to call one clerk this afternoon, and from what he tells me there is no way that his council or any clerks in the municipality would support either one of those sections because you’re denying the local municipality, a lower tier, the right of appeal. Surely in the case of my colleagues to the left, when it involves denying somebody his rights of appeal to come back and say they don’t support our amendments, then there’s something wrong in their thinking on that side. I suggest that since they deprive a local municipality of the right of appeal under this particular section, I cannot endorse the present sections 23 and 24. I support the amendment put forward by the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Mancini: It looks like pretty serious stuff.

Mr. Bradley: I addressed myself only to section 23 when I was speaking on this amendment. I’d like to address myself very briefly to section 24 and say that experience --

Mr. Rotenberg: Can I ask the member if we can deal with section 23 and vote on it? Then we’ll go on to section 24.

Mr. Bradley: I’d be willing to do that. I am certainly willing to divide it on that basis and reserve my comments if you want.

Mr. Rotenberg: I’d like to speak briefly on section 23, and of course I will speak only to that at this time. As I indicated earlier, the objective of this is simply that those who run the sewage disposal plants have some control over what may come into the sewage disposal plants. Those people who have no responsibility for disposing of the sewage really aren’t very concerned about what may go into the sewers until it gets to the sewage disposal plant. If the region is going to run a reasonable sewage disposal plant, you must allow that jurisdiction to control what goes in.

I’d like to make one other comment to the member for Erie about the opportunity the area municipalities had to comment on this particular piece of legislation. This legislation was, of course, first brought forward and presented to this House last May. It was circulated to all the municipalities. The wording is exactly the same in Bill 152 as it was in Bill 114, and, to the best of my knowledge, when that bill was called for second reading in June 1979 we had no objections from any municipalities. We had no notice of amendments on these two sections.

Of course that doesn’t preclude members, at this time when the bill is reintroduced, from bringing forth amendments. I don’t criticize them for it. I’m simply saying there was ample opportunity for those out there, if they had wanted to comment on these sections, to do so, because it’s been out there since May.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 23 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 23 agreed to.

On section 24:

Mr. Bradley: Speaking to section 24, this amendment flows out of experiences we have had in Niagara, the municipality which I represent in this Legislature. The municipality has had difficulties when it has had certain rates imposed upon it, most particularly as they relate, not specifically to sewage rates but to water rates which, as I’ve said to the House before, have increased 833 per cent since the inception of regional government.

We’re also concerned, however, about the imposition of a regional sewage rate. While I realize this does not deal with the rate itself but instead deals with the method used to calculate this rate, the fact that we shall not have an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board is what concerns me. Subsection 3 says: “ ... without having regard to the methods by which the regional corporation intends to recover the costs of the undertaking, work, project or scheme for which approval is being sought.” I quote that from the bill. We’re concerned that an area municipality should have the right to appeal.

The reason, in Niagara, is quite simple. They have a situation there where several municipalities tend to get together somewhere -- I’m not saying in the back rooms -- and, if it’s to the benefit of certain municipalities and not to the benefit of another municipality, it seems to pass pretty consistently.

Mr. Germa: It’s called democracy.

Mr. Bradley: There are some who are even prepared to make a little bit of sacrifice in their own community as long as it is detrimental to this one particular municipality within the region. I hear the comment that that is called democracy, but we in our democracy also want to defend the rights of the minority and allow them the opportunity to appeal. This is why I’m asking that this right of appeal not be removed; that an impartial observer, and impartial judge, the Ontario Municipal Board, be able to render a decision which is without political bias or parochial considerations. This is why we are asking for this, even though some would say, “Don’t you want local autonomy? Don’t you want to leave it in the hands of local people? Isn’t that what you people always want?”

I’ve had to concede, even when I sat on municipal council, that I would rather have the province make a specific arbitrary decision. In other words, the government would take into consideration the facts on each side and make a decision which at least is impartial and not fraught with the kind of parochial considerations we have because of the kind of regional government that has been created, with so many disparities and with a lack of commonality of interest which mitigates in favour of these kinds of decisions.

I’m asking you to allow this appeal to remain; and you may do so by supporting this amendment to delete section 24 or however the chairman wants to word it.

Mr. Isaacs: I am not going to support what is in the bill because I didn’t propose it and we should have done things much better. We would have looked at the whole structure of regional government and put in place something that works instead of trying to mess around with something that doesn’t work.

In response to the comments made by the mover of the amendment, the difficulty that exists at the moment is that the Ontario Municipal Board hearing into financing can be held after the whole project is completed. That is patently absurd. It makes no sense to go before the OMB after the project is built and decide how people are going to start paying for it.

In addition, how many times does the little guy win before the OMB? I ask you, Mr. Chairman, do you really have confidence that the OMB is going to decide on the basis of what is right and just and fair? When does that happen?

Mr. Mancini: That is what your chairman of procedural affairs has been saying.

Mr. Isaacs: What happens at the moment is that the lawyers for the two municipalities are paid thousands of dollars to fight an obscure battle based on law, based on absurd expert advice, and it ends up costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars to get what the region would want anyway. It seems to me a ridiculous way to go about doing things.

No doubt we have to find a better way of resolving disputes and a better way of resolving disputes would be to put people on our municipal councils who are committed to working for the best interests of their own community and the rest of the province, not to get into legislation that allows people to hire lawyers to fight crazy battles at the OMB.

We can’t support deleting this, Mr. Chairman, because all it would mean is more money wasted on lawyers’ fees to no good effect.

Mr. Bradley: So you are in favour of stronger regions.

Mr. Mancini: Let the record show the NDP supports stronger regional government.

Mr. M. N. Davison: You want to give away money to insurance companies and they want to give it away to lawyers; what a horrible party.

Mr. Rotenberg: A lot of matters have been raised here, but the principle on which Niagara is running is that there is a uniform water and sewer rate throughout the municipality. The Niagara region has, in effect, chosen to build its sewage plants at capital costs, not based on assessment or taxation but based on usage, based on water and sewer flow, which has to be even throughout the regional municipality.

What the legislation is saying is an area municipality cannot appeal to the OMB on the basis that they don’t like the method the Niagara region is using and want to go back to taxation or assessment or some other method.

Another principle of the bill is the question of who makes a final decision. We hear a lot of talk about local autonomy, and yet the members of the regional council are elected. Yes, from time to time regional councils are elected. Yes, from time to time regional councils of every government may not make the best decisions, at least in the eyes of some, but they are elected. Shall the final decision be made by the regional council which is elected, or by the Ontario Municipal Board which is an appointed body?

The other point is, of course -- as the member for Wentworth says, and I am pleased to have his support however grudgingly given -- the question may get to the OMB far down the road, after the project is built.

Mr. Bradley: They support regional government.

Mr. Rotenberg: Once a method has been set up and charges are brought forward, an appeal comes. The region has guaranteed its revenue flow, and they may be financing the program through 20 or 30 years, and suddenly, several years down the road the OMB upsets the plans. That’s going to put the regional municipality in quite a serious financial mess; it may give them problems in meeting their commitments, it may even affect their credit rating.

Mr. Bradley: We are already in a serious mess.

Mr. Rotenberg: This is something the regional councils have asked for in order to run their affairs a little better. If this does not carry, if the members for the Niagara region have their ways and area municipalities do appeal to the OMB, the methodology of the capital costs of these sewer plants comes down the line and could end up, hypothetically, with the areas appealing to the OMB, losing, and then appealing to cabinet, and we are right back into this situation.

I don’t know if the members would rather have the regional council making the final decision or the cabinet making the final decision.

Mr. Bradley: That’s a tough decision.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is a tough decision, I know, whatever cabinet it might be; and many years down the road, when you just might get over here, I still want the local people to have the decision-making process; for two reasons.

One is that they are the local people and they should have control. Secondly, they do it on the spot and by the time it gets to another level it would be two or three years down the road and really upset the financial basis of a regional municipality.

I would ask that section 24 stand in the bill.

[9:00]

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 24 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

Al those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 24 agreed to.

Sections 25 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 31:

Mr. Bradley: In regard to section 31(2), at the very end after the words “Municipal Act,” I have an amendment to move.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bradley moves that the bill be amended by adding the following words to section 31, subsection 2: “But notwithstanding this provision the duly elected council of any area municipality within the region may with the affirmative vote of two thirds of its members withdraw that area municipality from the region.”

Mr. Bradley: The purpose of that amendment is quite clear, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would ask for a ruling on the motion. I would think that is totally without the principle of the bill and has nothing to do with the section. I would ask you to rule that motion out of order.

Mr. Epp: Don’t you have your principles with you today?

Mr. Rotenberg: I do, but that was not in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for St. Catharines have any comment?

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, naturally I would bow to any decision you would make in regard to the protest put forward by the parliamentary assistant. I recognize why his government would not want to see this amendment placed before the House. I do feel it is relevant to this particular section and it would also allow the people of the regional municipality of Niagara to pass judgement on whether they wished their area municipalities to be included in legislation of this kind. It is the popular choice of the elected people. They can then choose to participate or not.

This is something we have been looking for in the Niagara region. If the people of the Niagara region had the right to vote on regional government rather than their elected councils, it would be overwhelmingly tossed out. Since the government which wrote this bill has advocated the philosophy of allowing the local elected people to make decisions, we’re taking the people at the very grassroots level and allowing them to make a decision.

Mr. Epp: Democracy.

Mr. Isaacs: I certainly don’t want to get into a debate on whether this is in order or not in order, except to say it seems to me --

Mr. Chairman: That was the point of order.

Mr. Isaacs: I realize that, Mr. Chairman -- except to say it seems to me this section of the bill deals with a great deal in regional government --

Mr. Epp: Get your chicken.

Mr. Isaacs: -- is dealing with items of historical interest.

Mr. Mancini: Where is your chicken?

Mr. Isaacs: That is something that certainly relates to regional government. It deals with --

Mr. Epp: Nothing to do with the principle.

Mr. Isaacs: -- a number of matters which are fundamental to the structure and operation of the region.

Mr. Bradley: So you are supporting it. Hear, hear.

Mr. Isaacs: It seems to me there is no problem in considering an amendment of this kind, though it is incredible to me how the Liberal Party has flip-flopped again on its previous position with regard to regional government in Niagara.

Interjections.

Mr. Isaacs: The Liberals supported it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. On the point of order?

Mr. Epp: With all due respect, I think the member for Wentworth worries too much. He is making a series of somersaults.

Mr. Mancini: He should go back to plucking chickens.

Mr. Epp: I think he should get a medical practitioner because he must be hurting his back.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I don’t think that has anything to do with the point of order.

I have looked carefully at the amendment placed by the member of St. Catharines and looking at the amendment in section 31(2) and particularly 7b, I would have to say the amendment is not relevant to the purpose of the addition and therefore would have to rule it out of order.

Mr. Mancini: You wouldn’t want to reconsider that, would you?

Section 31 agreed to.

Sections 32 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 87:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rotenberg moves that section 87 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “87. Section 117 of the said act as amended by the statutes of Ontario, 1973, chapter 161, section 7, and 1976, chapter 43, section 70, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“2a Notwithstanding subsection 2, the council of an area municipality may with the approval of the regional council exercise the powers of the council of a municipality under section 395 of the Municipal Act.”

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the House for bringing this amendment. As I indicated at the second reading of this bill, this was an error and even the best of governments from time to time do make an error in drafting.

The section now in effect gives the area municipality of the region of Peel the power both to promote industry and to acquire land for industrial purposes. So you have two separate sections of the act. It was and is the request of the regional municipality of Peel to allow their area municipalities to do industrial promotion. It was not their request to allow the area municipalities to acquire and deal in industrial land.

With apologies to the House, the way it was drafted in section 87 in the printed bill gave them both powers. When we requested the drafting it was the intention of the regional municipality of Peel to have industrial promotion only. That is why I am bringing this amendment before you, to give the area council within the regional municipality of Peel the right to do industrial promotion but not acquire land.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I might -- I will be guided by you. Is the amendment in order?

The section we have before us in the bill, which is the only section we have to go on, is completely removed. I understand a motion to delete would be in order. But we have here a substitution that gives an entirely different power and therefore adds something different to the bill and makes references to different sections of the original act.

I would really like you to look at the proposed substitution to check to see whether it’s in order. I don’t have a copy of the actual amendment in front of me and that’s why I ask for it to be written. Certainly, from what I have heard and what I see before me in the act the amendment is out of order. It doesn’t pertain to what is in the section 87 of the actual bill. It substitutes a different power.

Mr. Rotenberg: Can I speak to the point of order? Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of page 23 section 87 now deals with two sections of the present Municipal Act; subsection 1 of section 354 and section 395. Those are the two sections that are dealt with in section 87 as in the printed bill. The amendment I am bringing forward deals only with section 395, which is mentioned in the bill.

What I am in effect doing, by having to redraft it because of legal problems, is deleting all reference to subsection 1 of section 354 and leaving in section 395. So, section 395 is referred to in your printed bill. The amendment I am bringing forward also refers to the application of section 395.

Mr. Foulds: Except that in terms of procedure -- if I might, Mr. Chairman -- the operative section is the beginning section of your clause. What you do in the original bill, as I read it, is refer to section 117(2); what you are doing here is adding to the subsection.

Mr. Rotenberg: As drafted in the bill, it is referring to section 117(2) and redrafting it. “Section 117(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted therefor.” In effect, what the printed bill is doing is changing section 117 of the act.

What I am proposing here is section 117 of the act be amended by adding a section 2a; rather than putting in a new section 2 we are adding 2a, still dealing with section 117 of the Municipal Act. Therefore I would submit it is in order.

Mr. Warner: It seems to me what my colleague from Port Arthur has raised is perfectly valid. The amendment, as proposed, is contrary to the intent of the section that is set out in the bill --

Mr. Rotenberg: No, it’s not.

Mr. Warner: -- in which case the normal procedure is simply to vote against the section. If that is what the member for Wilson Heights wishes to do, fine. He is perfectly free to do that.

You may require a bit of time to take a look at this one. If it would expedite matters perhaps we could move on to another section while you are taking a look at it. But I would submit the amendment as placed by the member for Wilson Heights is out of order.

Mr. Rotenberg: If I may speak to the point made by the member for Scarborough Ellesmere, he said my amendment is contrary to what is in the printed bill. I would submit that is not correct. The printed bill in effect deals with two matters. I am saying the amendment is to reaffirm one matter that is in the printed bill and to delete the other matter. But I couldn’t write that simple amendment because it is tied up in some form of legalese. You have to do it in a different way in order to accomplish it in one section rather than accomplish it in two sections. But basically, it is rewriting section 117 to bring in sections 354 and 395 of the act. I am suggesting just bring in 395 of the act.

Mr. Epp: I am not convinced by the argument of the member for Wilson Heights that deleting that section -- I am not either speaking in favour of the motion at this point or opposed to the motion; I am speaking on the point of order. It seems to me it would have made eminently good sense to bring in an amendment to delete that section if that is what he wanted to accomplish. That is what we do in all other instances. I don’t know why you have to give us all this other gobbledegook and confuse the issue by bringing in a complete new amendment.

Common sense would dictate that if you want to delete section 354, then that is what you ask to delete. Why do you have to add all these other words? That’s ridiculous.

Mr. Rotenberg: The matter I think is in order when the subject matter is before the House. I somewhat share the point made by the member for Waterloo North about all these extra words, but when you are dealing in principle you can just do it simply; when you are dealing in law you have to do it, unfortunately, in accordance with how the lawyers want to draft it. The way it is drafted in the bill applied to two sections; you are doing it with one section only. This is better-drafted legislation.

When we draft amendments we all consult with legislative counsel as to the best method to implement something. It was not my suggestion to redraft it in this way. It was legislative counsel who came up with this suggestion.

Mr. Foulds: What a cop-out. You are responsible. Take the heat of the House.

Mr. Rotenberg: I take full responsibility, of course.

Interjections.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, can you ask him to be quiet?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

[9:15]

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, I think it should not be accepted that the member for Wilson Heights blames the staff for things that are in here. He should be prepared to accept the responsibility as the parliamentary assistant. If he’s not prepared to do that --

Interjections.

Mr. Bradley: He should resign.

Mr. Epp: -- he should resign or he should apologize in the House to the staff.

Mr. Warner: He should resign.

Mr. Foulds: If he can’t take the heat let him get out of the kitchen.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Rotenberg: I’m sorry I can’t acquiesce to either request. Look, I take full responsibility for what is here.

Mr. Grande: You’re apologizing.

Mr. Foulds: As close as he can come to doing that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rotenberg: This all came up because for some convoluted reason the members opposite raised a point of order on this matter. If they don’t like it then they can vote against it.

Mr. Warner: You’re convoluted.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, with respect I indicated right away that there was a mistake made in drafting and I take the responsibility for it from the minister. You have to take responsibility for it.

Mr. Haggerty: Is this the point of order?

Mr. Rotenberg: We put something in this that wasn’t intended. We asked our draftsmen to redraft the section dealing with the same subject matter, put into a form to deal with what was the request of the Peel regional council.

Mr. Warner: However, that’s wrong.

Mr. Rotenberg: The draftsmen -- I take responsibility for them because they work for the government -- have come up with a different form, because when you’re doing one thing you need a different form than if there were two things.

Mr. Warner: I’m sorry, but --

Mr. Rotenberg: Our changing philosophically is instead of giving the power to do things, we’re given the power to do one of the two things. That is a simple matter.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, if the members of the opposition do not want to accede to the request of the region of Peel to give this power, that’s up to them. But I submit, at least, that the matter is in order, and we should put it before the House.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, I think it is incumbent upon members of the Legislature to abide by the ruling of the chairman in this matter. However, I do take some exception to the remarks of the member for Wilson Heights.

I think it is the responsibility of members of this House to bring to the attention of the chairman or Speaker matters they perceive as being out of order, because it is important that the rules and procedures of the House be followed and that any legislation passed as a result of actions of this House goes through the proper procedures. It is for those reasons only that I raise the matter of the point of order. I would not want a piece of legislation to go through this House, if you like, illegally. It is for those reasons that I believe any member of this House should raise what he considers to be a legitimate point of order.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the point of order raised and of course the comments made by a number of members of the committee. I do understand that the amendment placed by the parliamentary assistant actually modifies a concept, therefore it would appear to me that it would be reasonable, if agreeable with the committee.

Mr. Sterling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Warner: To do what?

Mr. Chairman: To put the amendment.

Mr. Warner: You’re ruling that the amendment is in order.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Warner: Could I inquire, humbly, as to what would be the basis?

Mr. Rotenberg: You can do whatever you like, humbly.

Mr. Chairman: I beg your pardon.

Mr. Warner: What would be the basis for the ruling that it’s in order?

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you listen?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Warner: You’re ruling that it’s not contrary to the intent of the section?

Mr. Chairman: From what I understood, the parliamentary assistant stated there was a change in drafting after the bill had been completed that modified the content when referring to sections 354 and 395. In other words, deleting section 354.

Mr. Foulds: In effect, Mr. Chairman, that’s what gave rise to my original question: that in the amendment we have before us we have no references to section 354 and 395 in the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Chairman, a point of order --

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. On the present bill you’re stating?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I see the amendment before us on section 395. Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Isaacs: I wish to speak on the amendment. We have been through this before, but I want to try to press the parliamentary assistant for a little further explanation than simply that the region of Peel has asked for it. We have had these discussions before about, “Do regions get everything they ask for?” The minister assured me last time they didn’t, if what they wanted was regarded as something major.

It seems to me when regional government was set up it was put in place in the hope it would lead to some co-ordination of activities between adjacent municipalities. In the area of promoting industrial development and land and sites and facilities available for industrial development, it seems to me we have been generally doing very well by limiting activities to regional council, rather than having the lower-tier municipalities getting involved right across the province --

Mr. Bradley: Once again he is in favour of freedom.

Mr. Isaacs: -- simply because the amount of money and time put into that kind of thing is money that is really not well spent for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: We’re talking about the municipalities having the --

Mr. Isaacs: The kind of competition we get between municipalities for the very limited amount of growth being attracted to this province is, because of the policies of that government, really not serving the taxpayers very well. We cannot support allowing municipalities to spend even more time and energy --

Mr. Pope: Go back to chickens.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: You know more about chickens than you do about --

Mr. Isaacs: -- fighting with each other, as this amendment is proposing, rather than getting down and dealing with the fundamental concerns that the citizens of the entire province have. I really just can’t buy that you do this kind of thing because a regional council asks for it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You really are a Yankee chicken, aren’t you?

Mr. Isaacs: If we are going to do this, we may as well give regional councils that ask for one tier --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Isaacs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we proceed with this kind of thing, we may as well give one tier to regional councils that want one tier, simply because they ask for it.

Mr. Bradley: One-tier government is good government.

Mr. Isaacs: We may as well give municipalities that want the right to opt out the right to opt out, simply because they ask for it.

Where do we draw the line? Where do we say municipal government has to operate in a rational, co-ordinated fashion? And where do we say that municipal government can waste the taxpayers’ money fighting with itself for limited growth and for the other resources that are available in the province?

This kind of thing just isn’t helping the taxpayers of the province and we can’t support it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bradley: Bill’s on his way back; he heard this.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Wentworth started out by saying the minister said municipalities can’t have what they want. Of course, that is correct in many cases, but in some cases it is not correct.

I think the philosophy of this government has been that where municipalities ask for matters which are reasonable and not contrary to government policy, we try to respect local autonomy to grant reasonable requests to municipalities, be they area municipalities or municipalities not in regional government.

In this particular situation, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the promotion of industrial development, the regions are just about split in half. In the present regions of Peel, Halton, Hamilton, Durham, Haldimand, Norfolk and Sudbury, industrial promotion is all in the hands of the regional council.

Mr. Germa: That’s where it should be.

Mr. Rotenberg: In the regions of Waterloo, Niagara, York, Ottawa, Muskoka, Oxford and Metro, the development is in the hands of the local councils. Local councils can do it; this is done, Mr. Chairman, at local request and local option.

We had quite a lecture earlier this evening about all regions being the same; that they shouldn’t be, that there should be some local option and that regional bills should be tailored to fit the requirements of each individual municipality. When you get into that sort of thing, surely the local councils have some input and should have some input into how their region is dealt with and what matters should be at local option.

We in this government feel this is one of those matters. Whether or not industrial promotion is carried out by the region or by the area municipality --

Mr. Haggerty: Everyone but Niagara.

Mr. Rotenberg: -- or both is a question on which we will listen to the local municipality. In this case we have the request, we feel it is reasonable and not contrary to government policy and that is why we have the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Rotenberg’s amendment to section 87 will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Sections 88 to 140, inclusive, agreed to.

[9:30]

The committee divided on Mr. Rotenberg’s amendment to section 87, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 26; nays 29.

Mr. Rotenberg: As the mover of the bill, would it be in order now to withdraw the clause as the amendment didn’t carry?

Mr. Chairman: I’d say it’s not possible to withdraw the clause because the amendment has been placed, so any member of course has the right to vote for or against the section.

Shall section 87 stand as part of the bill?

All those in favour please say “aye.”

All those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Section 87 deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

Mr. Epp: I don’t understand it. I understood if we had the same vote -- the government was voting against the two opposition parties, obviously -- if we had the same vote it should be 22 to 22.

Mr. Chairman: The vote has been taken.

Bill 152, as amended, reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker: When this House rose at 1 p.m. on May 11, 1979, the member for Oriole had the floor. I will now recognize him again.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I recognize this will be the highlight of this session. I realize my concluding remarks on my comments and address to the budget will be something that will be savoured for many weeks to come by the members opposite. I realize the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) in particular had a very disquieting summer, not being able to hear the conclusion of my remarks. I am pleased he is able to be here this evening to enjoy the erudite and articulate remarks I am going to put before the assembly for consideration this evening.

I know all members of the Legislature do have clearly in mind the remarks I made in my opening speech on the budget back on May 11. But there may be one or two who are a little fuzzy on what I said at that time and I am going to recap very briefly some of the major considerations I presented to the House. This will refresh the members’ memories and put into context the other matters I want to go on to and discuss in some detail this evening. I think it will provide a continuity that would otherwise be missing.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns I expressed at the time on May 11, not a very auspicious occasion --

[9:45J

Mr. Speaker: I recall when the honourable member spoke last he had just finished reading a press release.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, you have an excellent memory. I commend you; very good. I’ll be coming back to that press release very shortly.

At that time I was simply pointing out to the members how this budget was one that realistically addressed itself to the current economic conditions within the province and the perspective being put on government policy through budgetary control and restraint was one that really conformed with what was very much needed at this time. It was one of cautious optimism, which I think had to be displayed by this government to encourage the private sector, in turn, to continue to show confidence in Ontario and to encourage the private sector to move forward in developing our provincial resources.

It may be recalled I cautioned all members of the House, the opposition members in particular of course, that perhaps too much emphasis and too much public criticism was being directed towards the private sector in the sense of completely rejecting the concept of foreign interest and foreign investment in this country and in this province in particular. I pointed out that some extreme comments were being made which I felt, when monitored by the responsible business sector abroad, would discourage otherwise legitimate interest in investment in this province.

Mr. Roy: We’re here with you, John; we’re here with you.

Mr. Williams: That is one of the major considerations I had discussed with the members. Because of my expression of those concerns I think some of the more responsible members in the opposition, such as the member for Renfrew North, did reflect and display an obvious change of position in some of the things he was saying in the House or has said since that time. I recognize he, as an example, has responded to the request to use more moderation in chastising foreign businesses and concerns as far as their coming to this province is concerned. In fact, he has on occasion encouraged them to do so as long as it is recognized that responsible government mechanisms and controls are established and maintained to ensure those foreign investments are monitored and are made in what turns out to be the best public interests of the people of Ontario and Canada.

At the time the debate concluded, I had shifted my concerns to a matter that was not only most topical at that time but remains so today. It had to do with the whole matter of the energy component and the fact a great deal of debate within this Legislature and debate among the public at large has taken place with regard to the energy problems that were confronting not only this province but all of the people of Canada and, in fact, is a crisis that has taken on worldwide proportions.

It may be recalled that at that time in particular I was expressing real concerns about the heavy criticism being directed by the opposition members towards Ontario Hydro. I had felt that while Ontario Hydro has on more than one occasion been used as a political whipping boy and as long as the opposition members delight in using Hydro for that purpose, at least for the record we should clearly put into perspective the important and significant role Ontario Hydro does play in the affairs of our province.

In fact, Ontario Hydro is one of the agencies that has been the most accountable to government and to the people through government scrutiny and questioning, perhaps more than any other committee or agency of government. The reason I want to emphasize that point is because, as I was saying at the conclusion of my remarks at that time, the members opposite were suggesting otherwise.

It brings me back to the news release you alluded to, Mr. Speaker, and the remarks that were made immediately prior to that news release, which show a contradiction in thinking even among the members of the opposition and which I think emphasize the fact that many of the criticisms have been distortions, if not contrary to facts.

Mr. Philip: Libellous and slanderous.

Mr. Williams: If I might, I will go back to the two comments I cited at that time to demonstrate the point I was making.

Mr. Philip: Only because of parliamentary immunity can you get away with such things.

Mr. Williams: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the comment made in the Legislature on May 1 by the leader of the third party. At that time, during the question period, he was questioning the then Minister of Energy about nuclear plant safety, but in raising such a question he was speaking in broader terms.

Mr. Foulds: What was the date of that?

Mr. Williams: If I might quote, the leader of the third party at that time said, “How can the minister expect the public to make informed judgements about nuclear energy, a very serious problem now in the province of Ontario, when Hydro has been so reticent about providing the public with both accurate and full information related to nuclear safety?” Then he went on to ask, “In the spirit of freedom of information, will the Minister of Energy direct Ontario Hydro to make a full revelation of all material related to nuclear-plant safety in the province of Ontario without constantly having the information dragged out of them?”

Mr. Foulds: A good statement. Absolutely accurate.

Mr. Williams: Of course, the direct and obvious implication is that Ontario Hydro somehow is being reticent and reluctant to make available to the members of this Legislature, either through a select committee or otherwise, the information that’s within their terms of reference and that comes under their area of responsibility.

Mr. Foulds: It certainly was before that day.

Mr. Williams: It’s interesting to note that within two days of that comment a member of the third party had cause to rise in the House and make a statement.

Mr. Foulds: What was the date of that?

Mr. Williams: I am sorry. He did not rise in the House. He issued a press release. The chairman of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs issued a press release on May 3 to make abundantly clear the relationship between Ontario Hydro and the select committee as far as it concerned Ontario Hydro and its officials appearing before the committee to answer all matters being raised by the committee at that time. During the question period and debate in the House, there had been confusion as to whether in fact Ontario Hydro was being reluctant to disclose all documentation and to be prepared to discuss fully all aspects of the operations of Ontario Hydro with regard to nuclear power.

The chairman of the committee felt compelled to make it abundantly clear that, in fact, the utmost co-operation was being provided by Ontario Hydro. Rather than reading the whole press release into the record again, I’ll simply read the last paragraph of his news release of May 3, which really put that relationship into proper perspective.

At that time, the chairman simply stated:

“For those who still harbour a suspicion that the committee” -- meaning, of course, the select committee on Hydro affairs -- “will not get all relevant documents, may I remind you that in all the committee hearings so far Hydro has provided the committee with every document and all information which we have sought. I am confident that that full disclosure will continue in the future and, as chairman of the committee, it will be my intention and obligation to see that it is so.”

That is the concluding quote.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the honourable member that that’s repetitious.

Mr. Williams: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. By repeating that quote again, it is repetitive of what I quoted on May 11, but I think it is of such importance and so germane to the point I am developing here that it bears repetition.

Mr. Roy: It’s against the rules to repeat too much; you know that.

Mr. Williams: It was obvious that some members of one party didn’t know what the other members were doing and didn’t have an appreciation or understanding of the co-operation that was being --

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order: I believe the member is misinterpreting to the House the statement of the chairman of the select committee on Hydro affairs in the interpretation he is now putting on the last paragraph of that press release by the chairman. The clear intention of the chairman in issuing that press release was, if you like, a notice to Hydro that the select committee would use all of its power, including the power that it derives from you, Mr Speaker, in order to get the information necessary from Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Williams: I don’t understand the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: You are misrepresenting the remarks of the chairman of the select committee.

Mr. Williams: With respect, how one can misrepresent what a member is saying when he is being quoted directly from the written words he issued to the press is hard to comprehend.

The point I really want to make this evening, having laid that groundwork, is to discredit completely any suggestion that somehow Ontario Hydro is a body that has not made itself accountable to the public of Ontario, and that it was being dragged screaming and kicking before committees of this Legislature and before other bodies to make disclosures that were getting it into some difficulty. It is just not so.

Mr. Foulds: It certainly was. It is a good thing you weren’t on the steering committee.

Mr. Williams: I am making these references in order to put the matter into clearer perspective, and to show without a shadow of a doubt that Ontario Hydro is probably one of the most heavily scrutinized public bodies; I think that can be clearly established by reference to the various bodies and committees it has had to be accountable to over the years. If I might, I would simply like to draw to the attention of the members of the Legislature just how many of these agencies and committees Hydro has had to be accountable to.

[10:00]

I would like to set out clearly on the record the number of man-hours, the amount of time that has been involved, and indeed the very costs of all of these hearings, to clearly show that Ontario Hydro is continually under public scrutiny. The select committee on Ontario Hydro is so called because it’s select, but in fact it has become a standing committee of this Legislature because I don’t see any termination date for it in the foreseeable future. It may be appropriate that it should become a standing committee because Ontario Hydro is having to account on a continuing basis to some public forum.

Among the boards and committees Ontario Hydro is continually accounting to I would first remind the members of the Legislature that we have the Ontario Energy Board. Ontario Hydro has to present its power rate proposals to the board annually for its consideration. This of course requires a great deal of input by its staff in preparation of all the material that will permit the board to make an informed assessment of the power rates being sought.

In conjunction with those obligations, Hydro has been involved since 1977 with the costing and pricing of electricity, as we all know. That in itself has involved a great deal of time and effort by Hydro officials in preparing the necessary material. They have to come up with a power and costing system that will be considered in due course by this Legislature and hopefully will bring about a costing-and-pricing system improved over what we have today.

All this takes time; all of it takes effort; all of it involves time and money; it involves human resources and financial resources. So we’re fully aware, although at times we lose sight of the fact that this is just one of the boards Ontario Hydro has to account to on an ongoing annual basis.

If there is any suggestion that does not involve a considerable amount of time and effort on behalf of Ontario Hydro I would point out some interesting statistics that I think make the point better than anything one could say.

If we look at the Ontario Energy Board hearings that have been conducted since 1974, over the past five-year period, it’s interesting to note that up to June 1 of this year there have been 345 days of hearings before the Ontario Energy Board. This is approaching very close to a full year of man-hours of presenting material to the Ontario Energy Board. Out of those hearings a tremendous volume of evidence has emerged. In fact, 349 transcripts of evidence were taken in those hearings, with over 280 witnesses appearing, That in itself makes the point that’s only the tip of the iceberg as far as the involvement of Ontario Hydro in accountability to the public is concerned.

Let’s move on from there -- from the annual reporting to the board to the fact the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning was set up in 1975. It was established for the specific purpose of having a public inquiry into the long-range planning concepts for electricity supplies in Ontario. We are all fully aware that under the capable chairmanship of Dr. Arthur Porter some very significant and substantial information has emerged from those hearings. But I can assure members, if we think the hearings before the Ontario Energy Board could be considered onerous as far as time and cost commitments were concerned, they are no less so with regard to the appearances Ontario Hydro representatives were obliged to make before the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning.

I would simply refer, again, to statistics that bear out this point.

Mr. Conway: We want more.

Mr. Williams: Since the royal commission started its hearings in 1976, through to May of this year -- that is three years of hearings -- it is interesting to note there have been 208 days of hearings before the royal commission, which represent a very substantial amount of time and commitment by the technical people, the experts at Ontario Hydro who had to be there to give account. While the number of witnesses who appeared before the Ontario Energy Board seemed significant when I mentioned 285 witnesses, the witnesses who have appeared before the royal commission number 872, of which 107 were Hydro employees who have had to testify to state the position of Ontario Hydro on any given matter related to the terms of the inquiry.

Referring to man-hours and the amount of evidence given in these hearings because of the number of witnesses who appeared before those two bodies, I think it would be of interest to members to relate some cost factors to those two undertakings. I think members will agree it is interesting to note that the hearings before the Ontario Energy Board, over the five-year period to which I alluded, represent expenditures in excess of $5 million. The expenditures arising out of the hearings before the royal commission have amounted to in excess of $2.5 million.

In addition to Hydro having its key personnel involved in accounting to these two bodies, we move on to the select committee which has commanded the greatest amount of the time of Hydro officials in recent times. As we know, the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs has, since 1975 really, been dealing with the representatives of Ontario Hydro and inquiring into all aspects of Hydro.

This brings me back to the point that the select committee should be more appropriately designed as a standing committee of the Legislature. We’re well aware of the fact that the committee has been delving into all aspects of energy, not only power rates at its inception but most recently with regard to nuclear power, inquiries into the cost of constructing the Bruce heavy water plants and the examination of the whole of Ontario’s nuclear commitment.

It’s interesting to note that there has been a considerable amount of input made in terms of man-hours and financial cost. I think it’s important, again, to put on the record just how much time has been expended with regard to the select committee hearings. The number of hearing days in which Hydro has been involved with the select committee exceeds those of the royal commission.

Mr. Foulds: Have you lost something?

Mr. Williams: Yes, I have. I’m incorrect there. They have not exceeded the number of hearing days of the royal commission, but they are fast approaching the number of hearing days of 208 for the royal commission. With regard to the select committee, we’re now up to 170 hearing days.

Mr. Foulds: But not all of them with Hydro.

Mr. Williams: There were 170 hearing days before the select committee.

Mr. Foulds: With Hydro people appearing before the committee?

Mr. Williams: No; there have been 170 hearing days in the select committee and there has been a total of 352 witnesses before the committee. A great number of those days have involved Hydro personnel. In fact, 97 members of the Hydro staff, on more than one occasion in many instances, have had to appear before the committee.

I think even the member for Port Arthur will reluctantly acknowledge that they have indeed proved to be very formidable witnesses.

Mr. Foulds: Not reluctantly but enthusiastically. They are very competent people and certainly a lot more competent than the present speaker. They have been able to defend themselves much better than he has.

Mr. Williams: They were witnesses who have been very creditable in presenting the position of Hydro. They have been able to present the position of Hydro. I felt throughout the hearings they have never had to defend their position, they have simply had to make their position known and at no time have they been reluctant to do so.

In fact, I commended one of the key witnesses for Hydro recently on the fact that at no time had I ever seen him try to evade intentionally any question put to him, no matter --

Mr. Foulds: Not like the present speaker.

Mr. Williams: -- how difficult the question might be or no matter how complex the question might be.

Mr. Foulds: Or how simple.

Mr. Williams: The forthrightness and direct manner in which Hydro officials have testified throughout the hearings have been exemplary. The way Hydro witnesses have performed before the committee demonstrates very clearly there has been no reluctance or hesitation by Hydro officials, or by Hydro as an agency, to let the people of Ontario know exactly what the administrative structure, make up and policy of Ontario Hydro is through its accounting to these various boards and agencies and to the members of this Legislature.

Mr. Foulds: How many man-hours has Hydro put in before the select committee?

Mr. Williams: I can only give you the number of days; you can determine from that --

Mr. Foulds: You haven’t given us the number of days.

[10:15]

Mr. Williams: There have been 97 witnesses from Hydro, and in addition to that many Hydro staff who were there every day even though they may not have been testifying, which is a point the member overlooked.

Mr. Foulds: What was the problem with that?

Mr. Williams: It’s not a problem.

Mr. Foulds: It’s like the minister having the officials back in the room for estimates because he hasn’t the guts to defend his ministry himself.

Mr. Williams: I’m simply putting the matter into clear perspective because of the heavy criticism that has been unfairly, and in a distorted fashion, levelled at Hydro. I think it’s important that we get on the record --

Mr. Foulds: You’re certainly not doing a very good job of it.

Mr. Williams: -- exactly how fully accountable they have been to this Legislature and to the public of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: I’m glad I’m not Hydro. I wouldn’t ask you to defend me.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You guys have been harassing Hydro for so long.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, those are certainly two major bodies Ontario Hydro has accounted to in a manner that, as I say, has made the members of this Legislature and the public at large more fully aware and appreciative of the significant role Hydro plays in the economy of this province.

People have always assumed that wherever you go you will find a utility that has the scope and depth of personnel, management and policy Ontario Hydro does. Yet once we start going abroad -- and when I say abroad you only have to visit some of our neighbouring states -- we find the comparison is considerable between the facility we have in place in this province contrasted to some or neighbouring states or even provinces.

Mr. Foulds: Especially neighbouring states.

Mr. Williams: Of course, a lot of the difference is reflected in many cases in the end cost to the consumer in this province, which is I suppose the bottom line --

Mr. Foulds: It shows the benefits of crown corporations.

Mr. Williams: -- all of us must be concerned with and which clearly demonstrates whether or not we have an efficient utility within this province.

There are very few people, I think, who prior to these hearings understood and appreciated the fact that outside of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the United States Ontario Hydro is the largest utility on the continent and perhaps outside of the TVA undoubtedly ranks within the first four or five utilities anywhere in the world.

Mr. Foulds: Most of us knew that.

Mr. Williams: It’s unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that those who criticize something don’t recognize the importance and the stature Ontario Hydro takes on in international eyes. In fact we should be very proud in this province to have this utility, to put on display if you will to other nations, states and provinces that send their representatives here to study our system and to see how they can develop utilities that will produce even half as well as Ontario Hydro.

I will carry on with some of these responsibilities Ontario Hydro has to the public of Ontario through its requirements to appear before boards and commissions.

There is, of course, the Environmental Assessment Board, which is taking on an increasingly important role in dealing with all aspects of the provision of energy, whether it’s through Ontario Hydro, through the oil pipeline companies, the gas companies or whatever. Environmental considerations have taken on an importance heretofore unheard of. Because of this, the setting up of a formal board under the Environmental Assessment Act, of course, makes Ontario Hydro accountable when it is embarking upon any major undertaking to ensure the environmental considerations are to the satisfaction of another level of government.

Mr. Conway: You’ve got to look more interested, being the only Tory in the House.

Mr. Pope: How could I be more interested than I am?

Mr. Williams: The fact is that Ontario Hydro has to account whenever it is considering the sale of energy abroad. It has to deal with the National Energy Board. Hearings can be extensive and detailed in that forum as well.

Another area in which Ontario Hydro has been involved in recent months and years has been with regard to the commission of inquiry on aluminium wiring, where staff were having to set aside their regular work and delve into this matter in depth and to appear before the commission to testify.

The royal commission on the northern environment is another area in which Ontario Hydro has found itself involved following that.

Mr. Foulds: Where’d you get the figures?

Mr. Williams: With regard to the northern environment, I have, if you’ll bear with me for a moment --

Mr. Conway: We have for two hours.

Mr. Williams: I want to satisfy the member for Port Arthur. I wouldn’t want him to go away without the key statistics.

I’m sorry, I don’t have the number of hours with regard to the Royal Commission on Northern Environment. However, with regard to aluminium wiring, 32 days of hearings were involved. During those hearings 33 transcripts were prepared and 79 witnesses appeared, 10 of whom were Ontario Hydro officials. That doesn’t take into account the personnel and staff who were there monitoring the hearings and not being called as witnesses before the commission.

Mr. Roy: And the conclusion is what?

Mr. Williams: These are some of the heavy responsibilities that Hydro has not reluctantly but willingly involved itself in by making itself accountable to the people of Ontario. I think it’s important that these statistics be brought forward. I recognize that statistics can be dry --

Mr. Foulds: I can see it tomorrow, headlines in the Sun.

Mr. Williams: What are the headlines going to be tomorrow in the Sun?

Mr. Roy: What are the headlines? He wants to know.

Mr. Foulds: “Williams trots out statistics on Hydro’s attendance before boards and commissions.”

Mr. Williams: Right on, thank you. Let me summarize the cost factors.

Mr. Foulds: Give us the details, never mind the summary.

Mr. Williams: I’ve given you the number of hearing-days on all of these appearances before the various boards and commissions.

Let’s look at the end cost factor as of this fall. The costs to date to Ontario Hydro, since 1974, in appearing either before the Ontario Energy Board, the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, the select committee, the environmental assessment hearings and the National Energy Board, has totalled $10.5 million as of the end of 1978. Since 1978, in this year alone, 10 per cent of that again has been reflected in the cost of all the hearings. In other words, another more than $1 million has been expended on hearings up to June 30 of this year -- I said October but it’s June 30.

Further costs have been incurred, which I have not got before me at the moment, which relate to the appearances before yet another committee when they held their special hearings on the Babcock and Wilcox matter.

Mr. Foulds: Is that the figure for just Hydro’s costs?

Mr. Williams: These are Hydro’s costs, yes. I have been neglectful because I overlooked one or two other areas in which Hydro has been heavily involved in the past, in fact in excess of five years. That of course relates to the inquiries with regard to the development and building of our transmission lines through the Solandt commission.

Mr. Foulds: How did Hydro arrive at them?

Mr. Williams: How did they arrive at the figures? I am sure that can very easily be calculated simply by counting heads as to how many witnesses appear and how many days they have to be before the committees. I am sure by the number of man-hours and the cost they involve it is fairly easily determined. I hope the member is not questioning that the figures haven’t been prepared accurately.

We have had Hydro involved, as well, in the Solandt commission hearings, which have yet to be ultimately resolved in relation to the building of additional transmission lines from the Bruce to the areas of Metropolitan Toronto and beyond where the energy will be needed. Further, of course, we have an advisory committee on energy which takes up the time of the members of the staff there.

Mr. Conway: We want a desk-thumping crescendo here.

Mr. Williams: I am just getting started; give me time. Task Force Hydro is another area of involvement of Ontario Hydro, albeit one that is basically at the initiative of Ontario Hydro, to review the function, structure and operations and financing of objectives of the organization.

You can see clearly it is not difficult to refute the allegations that have been unfairly levelled at Ontario Hydro as being a quasi-public body that has been reluctant to make known to the public of Ontario what it is about. These have been unfair comments and statements.

Mr. Foulds: You have tried to refute, but you haven’t done so.

Mr. Williams: It is abundantly clear from the record --

Mr. Foulds: Not from your record.

Mr. Williams: -- and from what I have put on the record this evening that Ontario Hydro is without doubt the most heavily scrutinized public agency of this government.

Mr. Haggerty: What’s happened in the last three years, John?

Mr. Williams: I have no objection that they should be scrutinized, Mr. Speaker, and I am not suggesting in any way from what I have said this evening, or implying, that I am critical of the fact that they have been subject to scrutiny and investigation, if you want to use that term.

What I simply want to make clear is that they have at no time been reluctant to be subject to this scrutiny, but it has not been done without some sacrifice of man-hours and financial cost.

That is what I wanted to put on the record with regard to the energy issue as far as it relates to Ontario Hydro. We have, indeed, an extremely co-operative agency, a very capable agency. I think all of us have indeed been impressed; whether we have agreed or disagreed with testimony which has come before the select committee, we have all been impressed with the forthright manner in which they have at least presented that evidence to the committee.

By the time I speak to the budget again, which will be when it next continues, I may be able to comment on the findings of the select committee, which will have been made based largely on concise and full disclosure that has been made by Ontario Hydro with regard to the subject matter that has been before the committee this summer.

In view of the hour, it would appear that this would be an appropriate time to adjourn the debate and continue at another time.

On motion by Mr. Williams, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.