The House resumed at 8 p.m.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the petition presented under standing order 33(b) is in order and the annual report of the Minister of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, tabled on October 11, 1979, therefore stands referred to the standing resources development committee.

LOCAL SERVICES BOARDS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 122, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Local Services Boards.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may pick up where I left off when we adjourned this particular debate, I think it would be very appropriate if I read into the record again some things for the benefit of the members who were involved in offering what I thought were some constructive criticisms in order to refresh their memories as we, hopefully, tonight go into a clause-by-clause review of Bill 122.

The key features are that it is optional. A community doesn’t really have to form a services board if it doesn’t want to do so. It doesn’t have to cover all the services if it does not wish to form a local services board; also a community can opt out of a local services board. It is designed to be a self-help facility. The intent is to strengthen the voluntary or self-help spirit of the community, not to give it a government program or not to make it, as I said earlier, a municipality. It is voluntary. Board members will not be paid, although the board can confer an honorarium on the secretary- treasurer.

The bill covers only basic services, such as fire protection, water supply, community sewage, septic systems, garbage collection, street lighting and recreation under certain circumstances. Boards will also have the right to raise funds through direct billings, through assessments or through their own community efforts, which many unorganized communities do today; that is through the holding of fall fairs, bazaars and other community efforts.

Under the Local Services Boards Act, they will have the right to receive grants and as such they will be a body created to act on behalf of the electors of that unorganized area. They will have local accountability. The board is accountable to the community for its actions. Elections will be held each year, that being the checkpoint for the electors in that unorganized area. In other words, they will have to account for their actions in a previous year.

There will be no regulatory rights. The board does not have and will not have the power to provide police services nor animal control services. They will not be involved in land planning rights. It is not a planning board and it cannot administer land subdivisions or other land matters. There will be no road planning, as we now have the local roads board and the statute labour board in place, which are operating exceptionally well. They are not a municipal government. The board is not a local government body. It is a self-help, enabling group elected by the people in the unorganized areas.

During the debate on second reading, at least in the earlier portion of this debate on Bill 122, several members raised questions about the financing of local services boards. For the record I want to clarify certain points outlined in my earlier policy statements. The financial benefits of the proposed local services boards legislation are twofold.

First, the bill will give legal status to those unorganized communities that wish it so that they can have access to government programs which have to date been denied them simply because they lack an organization authorized to act for those communities.

Second, the legislation will strengthen local revenue-raising capabilities by permitting a board to levy and collect money for local services, using the provincial land tax mechanism. If a local services board does not wish to follow this route, it will be able to set user fees or receive proceeds from community events, such as dances and other fund-raising events. In addition, the legislation will permit the Ministry of Northern Affairs to assist local services boards with the ongoing operating and maintenance expenses of their activities. These ongoing costs are often the bane of the community spirit in small northern communities.

This assistance will be calculated on a dollar-per-dollar basis, matching the moneys raised by the community through its own initiative. For instance, if a community has a budget of $10,000 a year to operate and maintain its basic services, my ministry will cover off half of this, or $5,000, provided the community raises its $5,000. I would stress this is a matching grant so that the community must raise its share in order to receive this provincial contribution. It goes without saying the grant will be calculated on local revenues net of any other government funding.

In summary, the proposed legislation will provide a local services board with a direct 50 per cent operating subsidy. The legislation is not intended to duplicate or replace existing government programs. On major capital projects, local services boards will have to look to the established programs of the line ministries or of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, including the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund, better known as ICAF.

On this point, several members have expressed concern that this arrangement will be inadequate for the construction of a water and sewage system as required. I am committed to the principle of the local contribution, but I know too that different communities will have differing abilities to pay, so that on these matters we will have to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

I am confident my ministry and the Ministry of the Environment can work with the communities to arrive at equitable solutions.

These are the financial arrangements I would like to see used for a year or two. The local services board is a new mechanism. I think we will all be in a much better position to evaluate its effectiveness once we have had several years of practical experience with it.

If I could just review matters for the honourable members who were involved in the debate itself, I want to thank them for their contribution, as I have said on a number of occasions. I do think some members have taken the time to study the bill in detail, but I have to say that some have just highlighted it and have not found the real issue at stake, nor have they been able to identify what we are trying to do.

First, I want to mention the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan). I think it is unfair to say he made reference to this particular bill being “the illegitimate son of Bill 102.” That might be the case in his opinion, but I have to say Bill 102 was brought together, brought forward and advanced through people of the unorganized areas of northern Ontario prior to the establishment of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. If it is illegitimate, it certainly is not illegitimate to this ministry.

Mr. Bolan: Is it illegitimate to you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We were not involved in that particular bill. I think it fair to say, as that bill at that time was moved across northern Ontario, it was obvious it was not the type of structure the people in unorganized areas really wanted. We learned a lot from that exercise. We watched the comments very carefully. We watched the reaction of the unorganized areas. Bill 122 is a result of the participation and the input we received from many unorganized areas of northern Ontario.

I think it is fair to say this bill will reduce the alienation of those communities in northern Ontario. Those of us who live in unorganized areas realize that up to this point we have felt a certain alienation from the provincial government and from provincial government programs.

There is no doubt in my mind if this bill is approved it will improve the economic base of these smaller communities, and of course improve the general quality of life and the level of basic services that we all want to see improved in the unorganized areas of northern Ontario. As I said so many times during this debate, it is not a municipal structure, it is a mechanism for improving the basic services so many of us take for granted in other organized communities.

The member for Nipissing in his remarks made some comment concerning the possibility of directing the provincial land tax revenues to the unorganized areas, good suggestion that we had already looked into. I think if we can pass this bill and subsidize their assistance programs, their self- help programs, on a one-for-one basis, it will far exceed the provincial land tax they are paying in the unorganized areas today.

Mr. Dolan: Then why don’t you put it into the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The province at this point is not anxious to give up that taxation area. I think we have to remember the provincial land tax does certain things for the unorganized areas. The member for Nipissing recited them and I will go over them again just for his benefit: provincial police, which is part of the service they receive; the contribution to welfare in the unorganized areas, because in an organized community they pay 20 per cent of the welfare costs in their respective areas; the contributions to the children’s aid society, which is substantial, I think in many cases in excess of 20 per cent; the contribution to the district homes for the aged paid for by the province on behalf of the unorganized communities; the contribution to the development of a new health facility or any new hospitals being built in the organized areas, there is special consideration given in those northern Ontario grants which takes in the contribution which maybe should come from the unorganized areas. All that is in the very small amount that we pay for provincial land tax.

Mr. Martel: They don’t know how well off they are; by the time you get through they will be better off than the organized areas of the province.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are going to be a lot better off when this bill is passed, I can tell the honourable member.

Mr. Martel: I’m telling you that’s stretching it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The honourable member for Sudbury East will be going across northern Ontario in the next few months telling the people of northern Ontario --

Mr. Martel: It was my amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know; I’ll get to that.

Mr. Martel: It was my amendment, so don’t take all the credit for it. You voted against it then.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ll get to that and I’ll share some of that glory with the member.

Mr. Makarchuk: You mean you flip-flopped, Leo?

Mr. Martel: You saw the light.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The honourable member also suggested that possibly we should roll in the statute labour board and the local roads board into the local services board. That was a suggestion made at many of the public meetings we had right across northern Ontario. At practically every one of those meetings it was turned down. I think it’s fair to say that the local roads board and the statute labour board are operating exceptionally well. They are in place. They have their specific boundaries and there would be a problem if we had the local service board rolled in with the local roads board. There would definitely be a problem because of the boundary aspect. The Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario people from east and west, and I believe the New Democratic Party also --

Mr. Martel: They get two for one, the local roads boards.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have no autonomy though.

Mr. Martel: Sure they have.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, they haven’t.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East has already spoken on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s an interesting point and I think I should clarify it. If a statute labour board is formed it gets one-for-one funding. Those funds are collected and they are allowed to spend the funds the way they want to -- one-for-one on a statute labour board. If a local service board is formed, in essence it is an advisory board to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The funds are turned over to it, and it spends them using its equipment, and the board loses that direct local autonomy; that is very important. Many people have said to me they would sooner form a statute labour board because they can control the funds they collect.

I think it is fair to say that the boards, be they statute labour boards or local roads boards, are in place and they are working well. We are not anxious, of course, to move or upset or change something that is really working.

[8:15J

The member for Nipissing also suggested we streamline our tax billing. I think he said -- and I suppose it would make good sense if we were forming a municipality -- that we should roll the school tax, the road tax, the provincial land tax and the local service board tax all into one.

Here again we are losing the whole thrust of our effort in this particular bill. We are not setting up a municipality; that is not the thrust, that is not what the unorganized people want. They want a body, a group, to be elected at large within their community so they can share the costs of the essential services in the boundaries they establish themselves.

They are not interested in going into a very sophisticated municipal type structure. That was the downfall of that illegitimate son, Bill 102. It was too sophisticated; it scared the people off, it was just too complicated.

Mr. Bolan: You could turn out to the downfall of this bill, too, by your obstinacy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I am not. I am saying it could happen somewhere down the road, maybe not in my lifetime but somewhere down the road. I agree with the member for Nipissing. It would be the ideal solution to roll them into one. I am sure it will happen somewhere down the road.

Mr. Bolan: They are going to get five different bills for taxes; five. Two for education --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s what they want. Somewhere down the road the honourable member may be quite right, and I give him the credit for that suggestion. If he’s around in a few years I would suggest he make that suggestion then, but at this time I think we should crawl before we get up and walk; and this is the way to do it.

Mr. Bolan: I have been around here long enough to know that what you are doing with this as far as the tax notices are concerned is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. There will be ample opportunity for debate when we get to the committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the member for Nipissing, I believe, issued a statement that I had deceived the people of northern Ontario. I can’t accept that because from day one, as we moved around northern Ontario, it was always mentioned that it would be on a basis of one-for-one assistance.

Mr. Bolan: Then put it in the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have said it publicly right across northern Ontario. I have said in this Legislature that it would be no less than one for one.

Mr. Bolan: Put it in the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It may go higher at some point in time.

Mr. Bolan: Fine; then follow my amendment, put it two for one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the honourable member was correct in making that statement. I have to say to you, in consultation with the unorganized communities, we agreed on a one-for-one basis. They agreed with me that this was the first step to go; we are not locked into a one-for-one basis forever, certainly we are not. I think it makes it much more flexible; it makes it much easier for the government of the day to adjust upwards those assisted programs for the unorganized areas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the member for Nipissing for taking time out to look at the bill, to contribute what he has. I would hope that as he bears in mind the comments I have offered, both in previous debates and tonight, he will form a broader opinion and have a much greater appreciation for what we are trying to do for the unorganized areas.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) made a number of contributions or attempted to make some contributions to broaden the bill. Again, I believe this would burden -- maybe burden is not the correct word, but to give them a broader mandate within their particular area.

I would have to say to the member for Algoma this was discussed in our dialogue with the unorganized communities. All of these things were discussed, for example, the possibility of being marked in with recreation. They will have a certain responsibility there, but in the other areas the honourable member suggested I think it’s fair to say the unorganized areas were not prepared to go that extra mile. Again, they said let us crawl before we walk. We accepted that, which is why we have drafted the bill in this particular way.

The honourable member also mentioned that the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund in his opinion was underfunded in light of the needs of the unorganized communities of northern Ontario and that this bill would, in a way, ease the demand on the ICAF. I would have to say to him that this would strengthen the ICAF program. There is no question about that, because the ICAF will still be in place and the unorganized communities can apply to the IAF for capital funds; it will be there and they know that. It is one step beyond lCAF, it offers help on the operating side. This particular bill does that. We have the operating side looked after and we have the capital side looked after.

I have to say to the honourable members the lCAF program, of course, is under review. I can tell him it will receive top priority as we move into the establishment of this particular bill.

The honourable member for Algoma also mentioned the one-for-one assistance was inadequate and we should include volunteer labour. He was expressing some concern as to how some of those smaller communities would generate their 25 per cent of some of those capital costs. As I pointed out on many occasions, the one for one is assistance on the operating side so they can operate their communities, look after their street lights, look after their sewers and water and their garbage collection. Certainly the large capital project would have to be looked at on its own individual merits. As I pointed out to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), Gogama is a typical example that will have to be looked at separately. I have made that commitment and I stand behind that commitment.

The member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) mentioned there should be sunset legislation in the Local Services Boards Act so it is automatically reviewed or transferred to municipal status. If there is something the unorganized communities don’t want, it is that particular thrust in this particular bill. They don’t want any part of a municipal structure, at least at this time. If they wanted to go to a municipal structure they could have gone to the improvement district. They could have gone to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and asked to become an organized municipality; but they don’t have that expertise, they don’t have that tax base, therefore many of them have not gone in this particular direction.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in consultation again, those who live in the unorganized areas don’t want any part of a sunset clause in this particular bill.

The honourable member also implied this is a step towards municipal government, like Bill 102. He thought the province would impose some general restructuring with the municipal structure in northern Ontario. I make the commitment tonight this is definitely not so. Certainly a lot of places, a lot of unorganized communities in northern Ontario, as we know them, are not going to opt for local services boards. We know that. We know they are too small, they don’t have the expertise, and I say that kindly of the smaller places. They aren’t growing, they are satisfied the way they are. Of course many of them as we know them, will not grow much larger than they are now, and they will want a simple structure to allow them to improve their services within their general areas.

The member for Sudbury also suggested we remove the requirement for public meetings to approve the provincial land tax surcharge. We thought that was a good provision in the bill and I think members agree; I see the member for Algoma nodding in agreement. I think we all agree there should be a public check and a public response to such new levies that may be applied to the taxpayers in that particular area. Again I have to say the unorganized communities would certainly reject any suggestion that would deny them the right of public participation in that major decision; in fact I suppose it would be taxation without representation, one might even call it that if we went so far as to move it in.

The election procedure was another area the member for Sudbury questioned at some length. We think what we have in the bill is a very simple and practical approach. Again it is extremely simple, and of course it allows the community to keep an eye on the affairs of their local services board member by having an election on an annual basis.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) made what I thought were some really good comments and suggestions. We have looked at them extremely carefully. I think they’re worthy of consideration somewhere down the road as the bill is in place and as we see the actual operations of the local services board in place.

The suggestion is that we apply pressure to the federal government to have them contribute funds to the unorganized communities for the services they should be but are not providing to those areas, It is a good suggestion and certainly one I want to thank him for and follow up on.

The member for Port Arthur also suggested we consider allowing volunteer labour and donated material as part of the assessment process for contribution from the province. I just want to say we recognize the province will award capital funds through the ICAF program and will continue for some time to match the grants on the operating side of the ledger, but we think it’s extremely difficult to value and account for, through the audit system we have in the act itself, provisions for volunteer support.

I think it’s fair to say the purpose of this bill is to support community spirit and really not to buy it, that’s an important philosophy in the bill itself.

The member also suggested we need a mechanism to protect against exclusionary practices by communities in setting local services boards boundaries. We have a check and approval at certain times during the procedure; and before a boundary is changed, of course, the Ministry of Northern Affairs staff would be asked to assist in that decision.

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) made a contribution. He went on at some length to recite some of his feelings, which I have to admit to you, Mr. Speaker, have already been incorporated in the bill.

Mr. Ashe: He never read it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate the fact that the member for Sudbury East went to some length to take credit for what I think is an excellent piece of legislation as it fits to the unorganized communities, but I think he failed to recognize a major issue and point in the bill, and that is the permissiveness of the LSB legislation. That point was never suggested.

Mr. Martel: You better look back at the record; that was in 1977.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was never suggested. I suggested a formal type of structure much more formal than we have. But I do thank him for his contribution; I think it was advanced in a very sincere and positive way.

Mr. Martel: Don’t distort the facts. You voted against it then.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It wasn’t what we wanted or what was needed at that particular time.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister might do himself some good if he addresses his remarks to the chair rather than an individual member.

Mr. Martel: You’re being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m not; I’m just trying to compliment the member and also point out some of his errors and weaknesses.

[8:30]

The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) made a contribution and repeated many of the thoughts of other members. I think his concern was for healthy drinking water for any unorganized community in northern Ontario, a concern we all accept and agree with. He went on to point out that we should have a good fire protection program, and this is practically in place right across northern Ontario. He also made reference to a good health-care system.

Many of the items he advanced were in the policy statements I had issued prior to introducing this bill. Again I thank him for his sincerity and his concern.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) became a little confused in his remarks. It was obvious he is not familiar with northern Ontario. One has to admire the gentleman for his input, although it wasn’t helpful at all.

Mr. Martel: He has forgotten more about municipal law than the minister will ever know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The unorganized communities’ representatives were in the gallery that night and they were literally shocked to hear some of the suggestions advanced by the honourable member. It was obvious he was using up the clock that night and that he was rambling. There was some embarrassment during that debate over what the member for Welland-Thorold was saying. He was advocating regional government and municipal government; if there is something we don’t want to see at this time in the unorganized areas it is regional government -- not through the local services boards, I can guarantee that; it just will not happen.

The member for Welland-Thorold also mentioned that the English and French languages should be put on the same footing. This is in the bill; there is a clause that clearly points out this will be done where necessary.

Those are the common concerns expressed by a number of members on the other side of the House. I am sure as we go through the clause-by-clause review of this bill we will perhaps tighten it up a bit more. Following the comments made earlier by the unorganized communities and my extensive discussions with them since those comments were made, I don’t feel they want to see any major changes; I think it is fair to say that. They think with their contribution to date and with the co-operation of the staff of the Ministry of Northern Affairs that we have a practical bill, one that really suits the needs and requirements of the unorganized areas of northern Ontario.

As we go into the clause-by-clause review of the bill I ask members to keep in mind the needs and desires of those smaller communities, be they of 50, 100 or 500 people, who have the economic tax base that would give them the services they want through the normal channels. We will be there guiding them for the next several years as this bill goes into place. It will give them autonomy and the power to assess for taxation purposes. We have a piece of legislation here which --

Mr. Martel: They can’t carry debt beyond a year, can they?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- without the shadow of a doubt will improve the quality of life in every unorganized community in northern Ontario --

Mr. Conway: Here comes Leo in a fire engine.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- that accepts the challenge we in this Legislature put out to them tonight.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LOCAL SERVICES BOARD ACT

On section 1:

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to have some clarification on section 1 of the bill. This type of legislation for unorganized communities reminds me of the old police village act. Section 1(c) says, “‘inhabitant,’ except for the purpose of sections 3 and 31, means a permanent resident of a board area or an owner of property situate in a board area, who is a Canadian citizen and who has attained the full age of 18 years.” Section 1(e) goes on to say, “‘owner’ means a person entitled to convey land and whose interest in the land is defined and whose name is specified in an instrument registered in the proper land registry office.”

The clarification I want relates to section 19(6) of the bill which says, “Any inhabitant is eligible to be elected as a member of the board.” But in section 1, if I interpret it correctly, reference is made to the fact that one has to be a property owner before one is eligible to be a member of the board. It reminds me again of the old township school area boards, where ratepayers would be elected to look after the affairs of the local school boards, but the tenants, those persons renting property, would have no voice in the matter of the expenditure of any sums of money for any specific project or essential services. In fact, it may even leave out the spouse’s right to have a voice and to be elected to the board.

Mr. Conway: Sexist shame.

Mr. Haggerty: The portability of many employment opportunities in Ontario means that persons are renting quite a bit. It would not permit them, if I interpret it right, to become elected to that board. In fact, they would have very little say in the administration of the board or in raising any objections.

I would like the minister to clarify that and say just who is eligible to be elected as a board member.

Hon. Mr. Bernini: I think the bill is exceptionally clear. I don’t see any problem with it.

Mr. Conway: Now just be didactic, Leo, and nonpartisan.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has spelled it out clearly.

Mr. Wildman: A permanent resident.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A permanent resident, a registered owner. Those are the people who pay the taxes, so to speak, or who would be assessed if there were an assessment for a service in that particular area. I fail to get the problem.

Mr. Haggerty: The point I’m raising is just what the minister has said. It’s the property owners who are going to be elected to the board or who are going to have any voice or say in the matter, yet people do rent property.

Mr. Wildman: It says permanent resident as well. Read the first part.

Mr. Haggerty: It says an owner of property. That’s how I interpret it. A person renting property is still a permanent resident.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Haggerty: But it doesn’t say he is entitled to be a member of that board. It says property owner.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Inhabitant is clearly spelled out. Except for the purposes of sections 3 and 31, inhabitant means a permanent resident of a board area. If he’s renting a home, he would be a permanent resident. That would be his domicile and he would be considered an inhabitant and, therefore, entitled to be involved in the establishment and voting procedures of the local services board.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further questions on section 1?

Mr. Conway: Dispense.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could give me some direction. I have a number of small amendments to various clauses of the bill that relate to a main one, section 19. Would you prefer I put them all as we go through or should they be put all at once?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I’m sorry, I didn’t get the question. Have they any implications for section 1?

Mr. Wildman: Yes. I would like to move an amendment to section 1 that relates to a major amendment which I’m going to make to section 19.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think we’d better have the amendment to section 1 now. Maybe you can briefly explain its relations to section 19.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I could interrupt for a moment, there may be some votes, I suspect, before we’re finished. I’m wondering if we could stack them. Would that be in order?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I haven’t crossed that bridge yet. I don’t expect there are going to be any votes, but do the members wish to agree now that if there are any votes they will be stacked?

Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause: “(f) ‘Ministry’ means the Ministry of Northern Affairs.”

Will the member tell us why he wishes to do that?

Mr. Wildman: This is a housekeeping amendment which would bring the definition in line with an amendment to section 19 I wish to place later. It deals with the mode of elections. In that amendment I will be suggesting the ministry be given responsibility for supervising elections. That’s simply the reason for adding it here.

There is one other amendment I will be moving to section 29 which in that case also will refer to the ministry.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I suppose the suggestion is if the subsequent amendments don’t carry then the member won’t need it. Yes, I see the problem. The votes will all be at the end anyway, eh?

Mr. Breithaupt: I think, Mr. Chairman, the votes will accumulate with the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do you have any comment to make, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m very much aware of the member’s amendment and how it ties in to other sections of the bill. I would like to hear the other amendments he has. Maybe we could go through them and I could then make my comments at the end. I think section 19 is the key section where I can make my comments.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. Then I won’t put this motion at this time but we will put it later.

Are there any other amendments for section 1 or any other comments on section 1? Otherwise, section 1 will stand as part of the bill subject to possible amendment depending on what we do later on.

Section 1 stood down.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Bolan: This is a relatively minor amendment which I originally filed with the House. A copy went to the Minister of Northern Affairs as well as to the critic for the New Democratic Party. I’ve added another proviso; “and by ordinary mail to every owner of land situate in the proposed board area.”

The section as it reads now sets out how notices are to be sent out to the various inhabitants of the area in question. I’m concerned that some people who own property in the area may not receive notice of the intention of a group of people within the area to form a local services board. This merely adds to the existing section 3(4)(d) to make it now read, “that the notice shall be sent by registered mail to the minister and by ordinary mail to every owner of land situate in the proposed board area.”

I simply don’t have faith that the proposed method of advertisement is sufficient. I wouldn’t like to see this kind of notice stuck on the pine tree in the back 40, shall we say, of the area. After all, we go to great lengths throughout the bill to inform the inhabitants of this particular area what is going on.

[8:45]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: May I place your motion before the House? Mr. Bolan moves that section 3(4)(d) of the bill be amended by inserting after “minister” the words “and by ordinary mail to every owner of land situate in the proposed board area.”

Mr. Bolan: In any event, Mr. Chairman, that is the reason for this proposed amendment. It simply is to bring to the attention of all the land owners the fact that an application which will affect them is being made in the area.

We are dealing basically with taxation matters, aren’t we? We are talking about some kind of a board which will be set up to go out to the people and which will have the power to raise money. That being the case, it is all the more important I feel for the people, for the owners in that particular area which is affected by the proposed local services board, that as great an effort as possible be made to bring to their attention what is being proposed.

My original intention was to have it sent out by registered mail until I found out that the cost of a registered letter was really prohibitive, and for that reason I have changed it to read “by ordinary mail.”

Mr. Wildman: This amendment is quite acceptable to us and we would support it. It makes sense that every owner be notified as well as the minister. We certainly accept it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member for Nipissing having done a little more research on his earlier amendment because when he served notice that we would make such a suggestion at this point we did some research and we found exactly what he did, that the cost of registering a letter to each homeowner would be quite prohibitive in this case.

I have to say to the honourable members again that we are not setting up a formal structure like a municipality, although there will be certain levies assessed to those properties with the various services performed by the local services board. We wanted to make this piece of legislation as simple and as operational as possible. It is obvious to us that if we were in the formative stages of setting up a local services board, in some cases we would have to have two or three people go through the registry to find the correct names and addresses of all those people within the given boundary. There is always the possibility of course that they wouldn’t receive the notice that goes through the ordinary mail, or that the mail wouldn’t arrive in time. You know what the mails are like today. I am sure the honourable members are very much aware.

Many things could happen that wouldn’t lend themselves to the type of structure and the type of administration the unorganized areas really want. They want something simple like the local roads board and the statute labour board where notices are properly displayed, and that is in the act.

You will notice that under section 3(4) the notice calling the meeting “shall set forth by description or drawing the proposed board area and the place, date, time and purpose of the meeting; shall be posted up in at least six consecutive places in the proposed board area.” The notice calling the meeting “may be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the proposed area, and the day named in the notice shall be at least 14 days from the date of the last posting or mailing, whichever occurs later.”

So plenty of notice is given to those inhabitants of the unorganized areas that a formation meeting will be held in the most simple and positive way we know; one that is working now with the local roads board and with the statute labour board. Again in our consultation with the unorganized communities it was their feeling this system was working. I say now, Mr. Chairman, I am agreeable if there is need to improve and to change this at some later date, then I am prepared to bring the bill back and to make those amendments at that time.

Mr. Bolan: I would like to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Northern Affairs. I agree with you about what people think and feel about the roads boards. However, you have to remember this is a board of first instance. This is the first time this has been given to the people of a certain area. All the more reason why every reasonable effort should be made to notify as many people as possible as to what is going to take place. It is not as if it is the annual notice which goes out to the local roads board. It is not like the annual tax bill which goes out to the area, or the annual notice of the local Progressive Conservative Party Association meeting.

Mr. Wildman: There wouldn’t be many to send that to.

Mr. Bolan: The fundamental foundation of the setting up a local services board is to notify as many people as possible in the area who will be affected by it; to notify them that something is about to, or may, take place which is going to affect very seriously their tax structure for next year or the year after, or whatever the case may be.

With the greatest respect to the minister -- because I don’t think he has the same type of cavalier attitude which the government of the day seems to have -- it is a cavalier attitude when you propose a taxation system for many people of a particular part of the province who will be drastically affected by this type of services board. All the more reason for you, Mr. Minister, to let all of them know out there this is what Leo intends to do. They love to hear from you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: With their help.

Mr. Bolan: Absolutely. Let’s spread the wealth. Let’s give it all to them. All the more reason for you to send it out by ordinary post. If you notice, I have been very charitable to the ministry and to you in my proposed amendment because I don’t say every inhabitant over the age of 18; I restrict it to an owner of a home or to the owner of the property in the hope he will convey it to the inhabitants of that home who are over the age of 18.

When you deal with something so fundamental in a democratic society such as creating a new tax base or creating a new tax system for a large number of people, the least you can do for all of the owners who are going to be affected by this proposed legislation is, first of all, notify them of the intended changes and then let them decide whether or not they want to encumber themselves with this additional burden.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I pointed out earlier, there will be difficulties getting the names of the registered owners. There is no question about that, as the honourable member knows.

My own community, Hudson, is unorganized. Right at this time they would have to travel 15 miles to Kenora to go to the registry office to get the right names of those individuals who are land holders in that area. Of course if they missed one, you know what would happen.

I think if we are making it a requirement that it be sent by ordinary post then we are losing the whole thrust of the honourable member’s earlier amendment whereby they be promptly and legally notified by registered mail. As the member has pointed out, this is extremely costly and he has withdrawn that, and correctly so, because he saw the weaknesses in that particular amendment. This would cause inconvenience; driving 154 miles is a day’s work. Who would do it?

Mr. Conway: I do it all the time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, but in unorganized communities they don’t have the honourable member’s zip and zap and get up and go that is so evidenced in this House.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They don’t have his leisure time.

Mr. Conway: Or expensive time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Or expensive time. It would be a serious inconvenience. Let’s be honest, in many instances they are going to have to pass the hat at the organizational meeting. There is no money.

Mr. Wildman: Especially with the one-for-one business. You’re going to have to pass the hat with one for one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no money for somebody to sit down and send out 400 or 500 letters. There is no secretarial help. We have difficulty getting a secretary for the chamber of commerce to be in charge of the recreational committee.

Mr. Bolan: You should be paying for the cost of setting up the initial meeting.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will be there assisting them. The northern affairs officer will be at every organizational meeting to give it every assistance possible.

I say to the members in all honesty, doing this would impose a burden on those smaller communities. It may discourage them at the outset from forming a local services board. The cost and the inconvenience and their lack of knowledge as to where to get this information would create a hardship.

If the system I am proposing is not working, in two or three years I am prepared to accept the honourable member’s amendment and come back and make some changes.

Mr. Bolan: In so far as determining who the notice is sent to or the particular address of the individual owner is concerned, all the minister has to do is check the records of those to whom provincial land tax bills are already sent. He already has a built-in system within the structure, right now, through the Ministry of Natural Resources. He already has the address of every person who gets a bill from the provincial land tax right now. All he has to do is follow up on that, plug in on it and get it out to them. It’s a simple matter.

Whenever something is very basic and very simple -- and the minister talks about the basic simplicity of this bill and what he is trying to do to people -- for some reason or other he turns his back.

What is wrong with doing it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is nothing wrong with doing it, but the people don’t want it.

Mr. Bolan: Then do it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is expensive. The people in the unorganized areas -- the honourable member is incorrect in saying the provincial land tax is with the Ministry of Natural Resources. It is with the Ministry of Revenue.

Mr. Bolan: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I say to the member for Nipissing, how will the individual who may have the initiative to start agitation for a local services board know where the boundaries are? He won’t know where to send the notices because no boundaries are established until the first meeting is called and until they themselves decide where they will service. There is that difficulty.

I say to him the posting of notices in six conspicuous places, 14 days in advance of calling that meeting; the placing of ads within the local paper if there is one; the moccasin telegraph as we all know it in the smaller northern communities, will be sufficient.

Mr. Wildman: Smoke signals.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Smoke signals, yes. The news goes around very quickly in unorganized communities. We’re not dealing with a formal structure. It’s our desire and the desire of the unorganized areas to keep it as simple and as administratively uncluttered as possible.

Mr. Wildman: If one follows the minister’s reasoning one would have the same problem in determining the six conspicuous places. If the problem is if one doesn’t know the boundaries, so they can’t send letters out to the people, then how are they going to know where the six conspicuous places are?

Of course, when one is going to organize a meeting one is going to have to have something in mind in terms of the boundaries ahead of time. It may not be exactly what is decided on at the meeting. They will be able to determine what the boundaries are in an approximate sense. That way one will know where the six conspicuous places might be in the same way one would know where the property owners are.

[9:00]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Bolan’s amendment to section 3(4)(d) will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will the other subsections of section 3, both before and after the subsection we have just dealt with, stand as part of the bill so that section 3 stands, subject to what the committee may do when it deals with it subsequently?

Section 3(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 5 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor: “5. Except as provided by order of the minister made under section 4, the term of office of a board member shall be for two years, commencing on December 1 in an election year.”

Mr. Wildman: There are really two things in this amendment. The first and the more important one is the term of office. I feel that with a one-year term of office, despite the minister’s statement that he wishes to give them some time to get started and to test things out and so on, in one year you are going to be just developing the kind of expertise you need in order to be able to run a board. The term of office should be longer than that so the members of the executive of the board elected would have a longer time to develop and implement the services they have instituted for the other board members.

I don’t think two years is too long. After all, we have other situations in the province where we elect those who represent us and govern our local affairs for two years. That seems to me to be acceptable.

Mr. M. Davidson: Some governments don’t last two years.

Mr. Wildman: The other section of the amendment, which changes the date from October to December, relates to a later amendment which I will be putting to section 19 with regard to changes in the type of and date of elections for these boards. It just seems to me that two years will give the board a better period of time in which to develop and implement the services on behalf of the residents of the board area.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to comment?

Mr. Bolan: In so far as this particular amendment is concerned, due to the fact that it is a new type of format or a new type of legislation which is being imposed on the people who live in unorganized townships, we feel it should not at this stage in any event come close to the same type of period of electoral mandate, shall we say, of organized municipalities or townships. I think what we should do is see how it is going.

It could very well be that for the sake of continuity of programs which they might develop, the people of the unorganized townships will want to decide later on that it be extended beyond one year. If that were to happen proper representation would be made to the government of the day, of whichever party it may be, and it is to be hoped that the government of that day would listen to the people of eastern and western Canada, who are, incidentally, the main groups behind this type of legislation. So we will not support this particular amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate the member for Algoma’s concern and a desire to have continuity of members after they have gained some experience, but as the member for Nipissing has pointed out, in our discussions it was strongly felt they shouldn’t follow the regular municipal elections for the reason that, first, this is not a municipal structure.

Secondly, they desired to have an annual election of officers because it gave the inhabitants of that unorganized area the opportunity to assess the performance of the members of that board on an annual basis.

I don’t have to tell you the problems -- the small family problems, the political problems -- that occur within a small, unorganized community. If this was checked and they had to appear before the electors of their unorganized areas on an annual basis, then of course they would be judged on their performance over the past year. I appreciate the member for Nipissing’s support of this section.

Mr. Wildman: I understand what the minister and the member for Nipissing are saying with regard to this being a new structure and the need to give some kind of experimental period of time, but frankly we have no guarantee that in one year’s time or two years’ time we are going to be back here amending this legislation. To say, “Let’s give it a chance and then we may change it” -- I don’t like to doubt the minister’s word, I am not doubting his word, but we may get busy around here and we may not be debating local services boards.

When I look at the record this session I realize we have had a tremendous work load of very significant bills which we have debated and one of them is the Local Services Boards Act. I wonder if in future we are going to have sessions where we have such a heavy work load. I think, frankly, once we do start doing some work around here --

An hon. member: He is being facetious.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I mean that facetiously. Once we really do get some kind of work done around here, once we have a session where we are really dealing with important legislation -- not that this is unimportant -- when we are dealing with a long list on the Order Paper, this kind of legislation is going to be put on the back burner, and we may or may not see it back here.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s been there now for four years.

Mr. Wildman: After all, it took the minister two years to get it into the House after my colleague from Sudbury East first suggested it. It took him two years. Why not give the boards two years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let’s get on with it.

Mr. Wildman: Frankly, I don’t understand the argument that because this is a new structure we should only start out with one year. When you set up a new municipality -- and I realize this isn’t setting up a new municipality -- you don’t say, “This is a new municipality, so let’s just have it for one year.” They can have a two-year term at the beginning.

I agree with the suggestion that we must have flexibility. I think it is very important in this situation. Where you are dealing with very small communities and so on, you should have flexibility. But, as both members mentioned, we also need some continuity. With elections every year there may not be the desired continuity of membership and we may not have the resultant development of services which we would wish to have.

In no way is my amendment attempting to set up a municipal structure at all. This is simply to extend the term of office for the members of this board. I’m disappointed the other members have seen fit not to lend their support to it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I think it has to be pointed out that I see no problem having an annual election of officers. If the members are performing, they will get re-elected and there will be that continuity of administration in the unorganized areas.

But I want to point out again, in the small-time, small-town politics that occur in unorganized areas, there will be a strong family, there will be a company-managed unorganized community, and if that local services board is not functioning to the real desires of all the people then they will have to wait two years until they get an opportunity to change the members of the board.

In the interests of the people living in unorganized areas and in response to their desire to have an annual election of officers I would encourage the members to support this section as it’s written.

Mr. M. Davidson: In speaking to the amendment put forward by the member for Algoma I’m not going to pretend I’m fully cognizant of all the facts that relate to the type of board being established, nor am I going to suggest I’m looking at it in terms of a municipality. But in practical terms I’ve listened to the response of the minister and he has suggested that following the one-year term an assessment can be made of the performance of the people on this board and if they’re not performing the people in the community will replace them.

Just as with any person who is newly elected either to this Legislature or any other form of governing body that may exist in our society, a board such as this cannot possibly gain the kind of knowledge on which one can make a judgement after a one-year period. I think the suggestion moved by the member for Algoma is such that it allows these people not only an introductory period into the type of board and establishment they are creating, but it is giving them the opportunity, past that introductory period, to show the expertise they have learned during that introductory period. They can then be properly assessed by the people within the communities they represent.

I think that’s the intent of the amendment moved by the member for Algoma -- the purpose that is there. I think it’s only fair to the people who may in fact make up these boards that they be allowed that opportunity to gain some of that expertise and then show what they can do before they are assessed by the people they represent.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bernier moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection 1(a): “Where in the exercise of its powers a board provides a service the board may: “(a) provide the service to the whole of the board area or to one or more parts of the board area designated by the board; or “(b) provide a differential level of the service to different designated parts of a board area provided that no fee shall be charged and no levy shall be imposed in respect of a service or a level of service in any part of the board area in which the service or the level of service is not provided.”

[9:15]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What this does, Mr. Chairman -- and the member for Algoma made this comment during second reading of the bill -- is to provide the board with the ability to assess a different level of service fee within the board’s boundary.

In simple terms, if there is a specific area to which the local services board is providing, for example, a streetlight service, the board will charge the service fee to the people within the area being serviced by streetlights. The board will be allowed to exempt the people in the rural areas from paying this service fee so it can have different levels of service fees for designated areas.

I appreciate the member’s comments.

Mr. Haggerty: To address myself to the amendment proposed by the minister, one area that is perhaps missing in the bill is that there is no appeal system to the local boards. Normally, if anything is being done under the Local Improvement Act the ratepayers still have an opportunity to appeal a decision of the elected officials. Under this act, there is no procedure for appeal.

On page four of the bill, in section 7(1), there is a provision that says, “A board may exercise the powers designated in the order of the minister...” Whether or not you are going to act as an appeal board, I don’t know, but somewhere in this bill there should be an appeal system whereby if people object to a decision of the board they may have an alternative route.

Under the Corporations Act an appeal can be made to the Ontario Municipal Board, but here the property owners have no right of appeal whatsoever. This could create difficulties for a number of taxpayers in the area who could be burdened with additional charges they don’t wish to assume. You did specify it might affect just a certain area, but I would like to see an appeal system included somewhere in the bill so the citizens have a right to appeal, either to the Minister of Northern Affairs himself or to some other body.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out to the member that section 7(2) states very clearly, “A board may at any time apply to the minister for a review of the powers being exercised by the board.” Section 7(3) says, “The board may appoint such committees to advise it in the conduct of its affairs as the board considers appropriate.”

So there is provision for an appeal to the minister if the conduct of the board is questioned.

Mr. Haggerty: As I interpret that section it is the board that at any time may apply for a review. It doesn’t refer to ratepayer groups, the people who are going to be charged for the essential services that may he provided. The board may have the right to appeal to you for a review of their powers, but it does not give the ratepayer the right to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The provision of the annual meeting is another check. This is why we’re so hung up, if you wish, on the annual election of officers, so that they --

Mr. Haggerty: They can be turfed out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They can be turfed out, yes. The ratepayer can have his say at the annual election of officers, rather than wait two years as has been suggested. I guess the strongest way to do it is through the ballot box.

Again, this is not a municipal structure. I think the route we have established, with the checks by means of the annual meetings, is a very important one and one which will be safeguarded as the local services boards become established. They will want to keep that appeal procedure right to themselves.

Mr. Wildman: I want to commend the minister for seeing the wisdom of my amendment and his acceptance of it by proposing an amendment of his own to incorporate the proposal I made.

Seriously though, I am very happy the minister has recommended its incorporation into the bill, since there are some areas where you might have a local services board formed where levels of service in various areas may be required in different levels, depending on the concentration of population and so on throughout the board area. This makes that possible.

Also, as I understand it, it makes it possible for a board to limit a particular service to a particular area within its overall boundary. This is what I was aiming at in the amendment about which I previously informed the minister.

With that in mind, we would certainly accept the amendment of the minister.

In reaction to the comments of the member for Erie, I would say that later in the bill I will be moving an amendment which would make it incumbent upon the board to hold a vote whenever there would be a change in the powers exercised by the board, a recommendation to the minister that they be changed, or changes in the boundaries and so on. That way it would give the ratepayers, as you referred to them, the possibility of controlling the boards.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: just to further allay the honourable member’s concerns, section 16 of the bill clearly points out that “A board shall conduct sufficient public meetings so that the inhabitants may (a) participate in a discussion of the current and proposed programs of the board; (b) participate in the preparation of the annual estimates of the board; and (c) participate in a discussion of the annual audit report.”

Those are the checks and balances in a small unorganized community. Coming from one, I know they have public meetings, so I think the attendance will be good.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bernier moves that section 9(3) of the bill be amended by inserting after “a” in the third line, the word “public.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is a housekeeping amendment. It clarifies the bill and makes it broader, so the public can take part.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the proposed amendment be adopted?

Mr. Wildman: We would agree with that. I had earlier indicated that I would move such an amendment and basically it’s just housekeeping to ensure it’s clear.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: I have a further amendment to section 9(3).

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 9(3) of the bill be amended by striking out “and the provisions of subsections 2, 3, 6 and 7 of section 19 apply” in the fifth and sixth lines.

Mr. Wildman: As in the other amendments I proposed earlier, this is simply to bring this section in line with a further amendment I wish to make to section 19 which deals with the mode of election. And since this subsection refers to section 19, that is why I moved this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I’ll be speaking to this section when we address the amendment the member has for section 19.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will we hold this matter dealing with subsection 3?

Section 9 stood down.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: What is the next section that anybody wishes to speak to?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Section 17, I believe.

Mr. Wildman: Section 17, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 17 of the bill be amended by striking out “or 19” in the second line.

Ms. Wildman: As in the others, Mr. Chairman, this refers to section 19 and the changes therein. This is to bring section 17 in line with the amendment I’m proposing in that other section.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If we’re agreed that otherwise section 17 is in order then we’ll hold the vote on that until we deal with the amendment.

Section 17 stood down.

Section 18 agreed to.

On section 19:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Wildman moves that section 19 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) The second year after the board is elected, the ministry shall call and administer an election in the board area for the purpose of electing a new board.

“(2) The polling day for the election of a board shall be the second Monday in November in each election year unless the day falls on a holiday in which case the polling day shall be the next succeeding day that is not a holiday.

“(3) The ministry shall provide for each election at least one polling place that is central and convenient for the voting inhabitants and the polling place shall be open for the purpose of taking the poll at every election from nine o’clock in the forenoon until eight o’clock in the afternoon of the polling day.

“(4) At least two weeks before the election, the secretary shall post up notice of place, date and time of the election in at least six conspicuous places in the board area and shall send a copy of the notice by registered mail to the minister.

“(5) Any inhabitant is eligible to be elected as a member of the board.

“(6) Subject to the provisions of this act, the board shall determine all matters related to the conduct of election.”

That’s a rather long amendment. The minister, I assume, has a copy of it. Has the official opposition a copy of this? I will ask the member for Algoma to proceed with his explanation.

[9:30]

Mr. Wildman: I’m proposing a number of changes in this amendment.

One of the main concerns I have is the proposal in the bill that the inhabitants of a board area held an election meeting is basically patterned after the local roads boards legislation and the mode of election they use. My concern with that is in many areas, but mainly over the fact that if a meeting is held at a particular time on a certain day, then an individual who happens to be away at that time of day, whether he is working on shift work or whatever, is effectively disenfranchised. That is a problem I see with the local roads boards in my area, which I don’t want to see extended to local services boards.

It has been suggested to me that this could be avoided if the term “meeting” were interpreted widely to mean not necessarily a meeting in the traditional sense -- that is, a group of people where the members or the inhabitants of the board area get together with the chairman running a meeting -- but to mean something such as an all-day or two- day or three-day meeting. It could be very flexible.

If that is really what is being proposed, I don’t think anyone reading this would understand the word “meeting” to mean that. if that is indeed what is meant then I would welcome the minister’s making that commitment here and changing the bill, if he doesn’t like my amendment, so that it will spell out that that is what in fact is meant by the word “meeting,” namely that it would be very flexible and could encompass an all-day election, for instance, or longer if that were wished by the board area’s inhabitants.

I really think the inhabitants of most unorganized areas of the province, although not all I will admit, do vote right now for the members of their local school boards and vote on a particular polling day and have an all-day election. They have a polling place where they go to vote for the trustees on the area school board. It seems to me if that can be done in the unorganized area and is acceptable there, then surely it can be done for the local services boards.

I am a little concerned also with the proposal here that the chairman of the board should act as the chairman of the election. If he is running for re-election that would seem to be somewhat of a conflict. I have been trying to come up with an amendment. I thought perhaps we could have the secretary-treasurer act as an electoral officer and run the election, but then I saw that in some cases the secretary-treasurer may be an elected member of the board as well. That would also be a conflict of interest as far as I can see if that individual was running for re-election.

The question then arose, who would run the election if not the chairman or the secretary-treasurer? In this case, I looked at the situation with the local roads boards and found that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which assists those boards in their operation, administers their elections or at least assists in administering their elections and in same cases actually runs the elections.

Since this piece of legislation is under the aegis of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, I felt we could then use that example and make the Ministry of Northern Affairs responsible for assisting in the administration of an election. In that way you would not have any conflict of interest and you would ensure there would not be any concern over the fact that someone who might be running for re-election was involved with running the actual operation of the election.

A couple of other things. The reason I want to have polling stations and so on is not to make this complex and inflexible, as has been suggested, or to propose something that is going to lead to a municipal type of structure, but to ensure we have the basic tenets of our democracy followed in this election.

For one thing, it has been proposed if it were just an election meeting the members of the board or the inhabitants of the board area could vote by a simple show of hands if they so desired. Frankly, the battle over the secret ballot was fought in the 19th century and I don’t think we should be fighting it again here.

This doesn’t mean you are going to have to have printed ballots or the formal ballots you have in a municipal election or in a board of trustees election. You could simply have a situation where you have blank pieces of paper with a list of candidates shown in the polling station. The individual coming in to vote could simply write down the name of the person for whom he wished to vote, fold it and put it in the ballot box being used at the time. It is not to add a lot of expense or to make it too formal, but it is to ensure the basic things we believe in, such as the secret ballot and the opportunity to vote, the franchise being exercised by everyone, is ensured for the inhabitants of the board area.

Those are the basic reasons for my amendment. I hope the minister and the members of the House would consider it seriously.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I do appreciate the member’s concern and I know both the member for Nipissing and the member for Algoma have expressed some concern with regard to the election, as has already been pointed out, with regard to the posting of notices. This amendment the member for Algoma has suggested again requires notice by registered mail and a number of things we have already debated.

I think it is fair to say this amendment, as presented, would erode certain basic principles of the legislation; the flexibility of the Local Services Boards Act, the simplicity which I have spoken to at great length and, of course, local control. If we went this particular route, it would be more structured, much more like Bill 102 -- the illegitimate son, as the honourable member mentioned.

Mr. Martel: Oh come on, bastard son.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Bill 102 was very structured and we kept away from that in drafting this bill.

As I stated many times, Mr. Chairman, the Local Services Boards Act is a non-municipal option. We don’t really think it is necessary to have a polling day per se in a November election, as suggested in this section.

If the members have looked at the bill, they noticed the annual meeting shall be held between August 1 and the end of September, and the budget should be prepared at a certain time, by December 1. There is a reason for that. If you want to piggy-back on the provincial land tax for their assessment, it has to be into the Minister of Revenue’s computers by that time.

The dates look odd. I realize that. They are not the calendar year, nor a normal fiscal year as we know it in government, but nevertheless they are designed to facilitate the options of the local services board. This is why they were put this way.

I appreciate the members’ concern -- so much so that I have an amendment to section 19. I would like to send the member for Algoma and the member for Nipissing a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bernier moves that section 19(7) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(7) For all elections after the first election, the board shall, subject to subsection 8, determine all matters relating to the conduct of elections.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Both members were referring to subsection 8. I agree with them and am pleased to add it to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Bernier further moves the addition of subsection 8: “Voting for the election of members of the board shall be by way of secret ballot.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think that’s very basic and simple, but as the honourable members have pointed out, in small unorganized communities we know there can be company-owned-and-operated communities and many times a show of hands puts an individual in an embarrassing position. He may want to express himself in a particular way but because of his superiors or his peers possibly running for election or being in the meeting hall he is reluctant to do so.

I accept the honourable member’s suggestion and I make these amendments and would hope they would support me in our efforts to make this bill as democratic, as simple, as flexible and as effective as we can.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think you will find the amendment I moved is already on the floor. I believe the minister, in making his statement and reading his amendment, was attempting to indicate that if my amendment were defeated his amendment could then be put. I would think we are still debating my amendment which is already on the floor.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, maybe you would ask if the member would prefer to withdraw his amendment at this point, or would he prefer to have it voted on and then deal with the minister’s amendment?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to respond to the minister’s comments on my amendment as it relates to his proposal, but I would prefer to have my amendment voted on. I am sure the minister’s amendment will be redundant since mine will pass.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Just as the honourable member was rising, I was correcting the comments made by the minister. I was going to suggest that we should complete the amendment because the further amendment really doesn’t amend the new amendment. Therefore, I think it would be in order if we dealt with the amendment placed by the member for Algoma first. We still can go back and place the other amendment.

Are there any further comments on the amendment by the member for Algoma?

Mr. Bolan: Yes, just one comment on the amendment put forward by the member for Algoma. In view of the fact the government will be introducing the amendments which the minister has referred to, we will not be supporting the amendment of the member for Algoma.

My concerns are cleared somewhat by the proposed additions of subsections 7 and 8 to the existing section. We will not be supporting the amendment of the member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I am, to say the least, somewhat disappointed. I will admit the minister has obviously listened to the arguments I put forward and in doing so has therefore come up with his amendment.

I agree with the member for Nipissing that section 24 is the most important one and the one we will be having the greatest deal of debate about. However, in relation to the minister’s comment that my amendment would require further registered mail, that is true, but only registered mail to the minister -- one letter.

I don’t think this amendment would make the procedure too complex. I have perhaps a little more confidence in the people who live in unorganized communities than the minister has. I think they can understand my amendment. I don’t think it is too complex for them to understand how an election can operate. I think they should be able to understand this and operate it quite well. I don’t think we should be so paternalistic as to say this is too complex for them and we must make it simple.

The operation of this bill I suppose is on the basis of KISS -- keep it simple, stupid. Perhaps, but I think that can be carried a little too far.

[9:45]

To say this is Bill 102 over again, since it is more structured, is to ignore the fact that the minister himself has been emphasizing all along that this is indeed permissive legislation. We are not imposing this on anyone. They can choose to form a board or not form a board. This, again, is not a municipal structure that is being imposed.

I agree that in providing for a secret ballot the minister has recognized the need for that basic tenet of our democracy. It will deal with the problem of a small unorganized community where often one company may run a town and if an individual had to vote by a show of hands he might be intimidated by a superior who wished for someone to be elected other than the individual for whom the resident wished to vote.

I don’t think the minister’s amendments cover the whole thing, as I suggested, but at least they will provide more flexibility. If the Liberal Party has decided not to support my amendment at least the minister’s amendment is, shall I say, a quarter of a loaf and that may be better than half a loaf.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may just sum up, I would remind the honourable member that section 19(7) clearly points out, “For all elections after the first election, the board shall determine all matters related to the conduct of elections.”

So they have the flexibility after the first election. If they want to have an all-day polling session, if they want to do certain things you spelled out, I am sure many of the people who will be going into the local services board will read the debates of tonight and that will be clearly indicated to them.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 20 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 23:

Mr. Martel: The other evening when I spoke on this bill, I asked the minister to explain to me what I perceive as a discrepancy. I was just talking to my friend, the member for Nipissing, and I believe he has the same understanding of what is happening in sections 23 and 28, because 23 -- and let me go over it again carefully -- says: “(1) Before the first day of December in each year, the board shall prepare and, after public discussion, adopt annual estimates of all amounts required for the purposes of the board for operating and capital expenditures for the current fiscal year.

“(2) In preparing the estimates, the board shall take into account any surplus from the previous year that will be available in the current year, any operating deficit from the previous year and any debt owing to the crown...”

Section 28 says, “A board shall not incur any debt, except a debt owed to the crown in right of Ontario, the payment of which extends beyond the term of office of the board.”

That seems to exclude, as I read it anyway, the possibility of a service board running up a debt one year beyond their term, which itself is only one year, except if that debt is owed to the crown. As I read section 28 it says if it is not owed to the crown they can’t do it beyond the one year, or the term of office. I just think the two things are contradictory.

Maybe the minister can indicate to me where I am interpreting this wrongly, or indicate if he is prepared to put section 28 in somewhat different language to make it read that they could carry a debt beyond the one year if it’s not a debt incurred by the crown and for which we pay to the crown the carrying of that debt.

I simply think that it’s wrong. Maybe I’m misinterpreting it but as I said, my friend from Nipissing is going to speak to it and he interprets it in somewhat the same way. I think that has to be clarified in the bill either in section 23 -- and I raise it now -- or in section 28, in which case we should have some assurance that the minister will clarify it. As I said the other night, I think it’s contradictory. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he can give me an explanation and I await his words of wisdom.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I’m always pleased to exchange words of wisdom with the member for Sudbury East.

He makes a point; he has some difficulty in rationalizing sections 23 and 28. I know they may appear to be contradictory but really they are not because there could be an operating deficit carried over from the previous year because of -- as an example -- non-payment.

Section 28 clearly states that there will not be a carry-over of capital debt. That’s what we’re referring to there. Of course, that would be owing to the crown. So that is the differential.

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t say that in section 28 and therefore the problem exists. It doesn’t say capital debt.

The minister will recall I worried about building. Let’s say a municipality decided to go on its own with a municipal water works. That would be a capital debt one could go beyond, but if it had to be done in one year it couldn’t be done. We all know that.

It doesn’t say that in section 28 and that’s why I suggest to the minister that he has to change one of the two. He has to clarify section 28, I think, to make it read that way. As it now stands, that section doesn’t give that impression and I wouldn’t want to leave it there because we could get an interpretation eventually that could say “no, you can’t proceed because it’s not in the act.”

I’m sure the minister agrees that somewhere down the road someone might give him a wrong interpretation of that. I would ask the minister to bring in an amendment to clarify that section.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, as the honourable member knows, local services boards cannot borrow except from the province. Now there could well be an operating debt carried over from year to year. Section 28 prohibits the carrying over of an operating debt.

In other words, the new board coming into place will have to include that amount in their next year’s budget so that there is no carryover for it. The only debt they could have is to the crown, which is clearly spelled out in section 8. It may seem a little confusing but it’s as clear as I can put it, that there may be that operating deficit which has to be picked up in the succeeding year and included in their estimates to us. All they can carry under these two sections is a debt to the crown. That’s all they can carry forward.

Mr. Martel: Surely the minister agrees then that if that’s what he’s implying, if that’s what he wants then there must be a way of clarifying that in the act so that the act states specifically what he intends it to mean.

To simply say it, leaves it wide open to misinterpretation. I would ask the minister to have his staff draft something that says what he has told me across the floor. Maybe I’m wrong and I yield to my friend from Nipissing, who’s a lawyer. He might give the minister what he perceives is a legal interpretation of what’s there. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it as that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My legal staff have gone over it, since the member made the comment during our earlier discussions in the House on second reading. We carefully reviewed the member’s comments and we are satisfied from the drafter’s point of view and the legal point of view that we have his fears covered; the problems to which the member relates are carefully considered in these two sections. I assure him of that.

Mr. Bolan: Correct me if I am wrong in this, but are you saying a local services board cannot contract, except with the crown, for services beyond one year? Is that what you’re saying?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Bolan: Let me put this proposition to you. Let us suppose a local services board enters into a five-year contract with an adjacent municipality for firefighting services or equipment. Are you saying, first of all, if the local services board does not meet its yearly obligations to that adjoining municipality, the municipality is precluded from attempting to collect from the local services board which entered into that particular contract for payment of that particular service?

Can you really envisage a situation with local services boards, where in many instances they wouldn’t even be able to afford one lamppost for one year, getting involved in a contract which really would require an expenditure over three to five years or longer with an agency other than the crown? How are these local services boards expected to operate on expenditures for long-term contracts with agencies other than the crown? How can you expect local services boards to enter into water contracts, lighting contracts or garbage contracts when the very nature of the contract may call for it to go beyond the one year?

How can you expect them to operate unless it is for more than one year? Eight now, from the way you have explained it, it means a local services board cannot contract with any agency other than the crown beyond a period of one year. I say to you that is impracticable and impossible. I cannot envisage a local services board being able to get into that kind of contractual arrangement for the provision of certain services, unless it is for a period beyond one year. In many instances, services can be provided at a much better rate if they are for a long period of time rather than for just one year.

I am not satisfied in my own mind, and I am sure the member for Sudbury East is not satisfied, with the explanation you have given. What you seem to be saying is: “Yes, maybe in a behind-the-scenes type of thing you can enter into a contract beyond one year. What you would do for the ensuing year would be to add, as part of your estimates, the second-year costs of operation.” Is this what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting for one minute that local services boards be enticed into entering into contracts which, according to the interpretation of the statute, would be void beyond one year?

The local services boards simply would not be able to operate beyond that one-year term; yet the service may have been provided by whatever the agency may be. I am not satisfied with your explanation. I think before we can go any further with this, something a bit more definitive should be given on the length of the contract.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is certainly some misunderstanding as to the thrust we are taking here. I think you fail to recognize the local services board sets up a structure whereby it can assist in the operating of those services. They can assess. We share 50-50 on that basis.

[10:00]

When it comes to the capital side, they can borrow or we’ll give them grants from the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund, for a percentage of the cost. There may be a repayment structure we’ll get involved in, or they’ll repay a portion of it. I don’t know what that will be. Their capital debt will be to the province. That is all they can carry from year to year.

There may be the odd occasion when they send out their assessments. Provincial land tax is an example, where for two or three years those funds have not flowed, so they have a deficit on the operating side. Then they have to pick that up in the next year. That is clear to me.

I fully agree with the member for Nipissing that there would be certain advantages for long-term contracts. They can do that. They can enter into a yearly contract with the adjacent municipality for services to be renewed every year. Don’t forget we have an annual election of the municipal services boards members. We have the annual audit. Each year they have to apply for assessment out of the provincial land tax by a specific time for operating funds to flow. It’s very clearly spelled out,

I fail to realize the problem the member is seeing here. I assure him the checks and balances are there. They borrow the capital to submit funds, but there cannot be a continuing operating deficit from year to year. That has to be picked up each year.

Mr. Martel: Would the minister point out where it says in section 28 “capital debts,” that volume? Tell me where it is; show me. I think I can read. I can’t find where it says “for capital expenditures.” I just can’t. Maybe the minister could point it out to us.

Mr. Bolan: Maybe he can.

Mr. Martel: If the minister can show me where it means that, I will sit down. If he can show me what spells that out, I will sit down. But show it to me. But he can’t find it there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If it would be clear to the honourable members to add the words “except a capital debt owed to the crown” I would accept that, if it would clarify it in their own minds. I’m prepared to make that amendment. “The board shall incur any debt, except a capital debt owed to the crown.” That clarifies it. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the chairman could put the other section before that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall sections 24 to --

Mr. Wildman: No.

Mr. Chairman: Section 23?

Mr. Breithaupt: Before we get to that point, could we agree as to just what the amendment is that the minister is about to propose, so the members would know just what has been agreed to?

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order: I would be prepared, since my amendment to section 19 did not carry, to withdraw my proposed amendments to section 9(3) and to section 17, since they were housekeeping, to bring them in line with the amendment to section 19.

Mr. Chairman: Whereas Mr. Wildman has withdrawn his amendments to sections 1, 9 and 17 --

Mr. Wildman: To sections 9 and 17.

Mr. Chairman: Sections 9 and 17. Not section 1.

Sections 9 and 17 agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

On section 24:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bolan moves that section 24 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“The minister shall pay to the board annually out of moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature an amount that is equal to twice the total amount of moneys paid to the board by the Minister of Revenue under section 26, the amount that the rate or rates levied under section 26 would produce if levied in respect of the improved crown land within the board area, the fees collected by the board for the supply of services, or the use of facilities in such other amounts as by the initiatives of the inhabitants have been raised and granted to the board.”

As I read through that amendment, I feel I have to refer to standing order 15 which states that there must be “a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown” and therefore I would have to rule this amendment out of order.

Mr. Bolan: May I speak on that?

Mr. Wildman: The minister will accept it though, surely.

Mr. Chairman: The member can challenge my ruling.

Mr. Bolan: I want a right of appeal without challenging the chairman’s ruling. Is that the order, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I ruled it out of order.

Mr. Bolan: Without hearing reasons why it should not be ruled out of order?

Mr Chairman: I did.

Mr. Bolan: In other words, “tilt”.

Mr. Wildman: Since the chair has ruled that amendment out of order, I would indicate I have an amendment I would like to put on subsection 2.

We’ve made the arguments all along, Mr. Chairman, that the one-for-one formula is completely inadequate and we can’t accept it. But since you’ve ruled that out of order, if subsection 1 were to carry, I have an amendment for subsection 2.

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry, I was somewhat interrupted there.

Mr. Wildman: I think all members on this side of the House believe and if some members on that side of the House were to have their druthers they would agree, and perhaps the member for the northern Vatican would agree, that the one-for-one formula is completely inadequate and it should be increased. Since that’s been ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, if subsection 1 carries, I have an amendment for subsection 2.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It should be two for one and one for all?

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Sudbury have any comments on that?

Mr. Germa: It’s unfortunate you had to find this motion out of order. I think the minister might even be enticed into overruling the chair if he realized the potential this would have.

Mr. Chairman: I gave a ruling on that.

Mr. Germa: I’m not speaking to your ruling. I’m not challenging your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wildman: He’s just asking the minister to change his mind.

Mr. Germa: I’m not challenging your ruling whatsoever, Mr. Chairman. I accept it. It is an expenditure of money and it has to be addressed by the government, but the government has the power to make that point.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We haven’t voted on it.

Mr. Germa: If the minister would realize the great potential there is in the amendment, he might intervene in the affairs of the House because this is the destructive part of the bill. This is where the minister gets the opportunity to deliver moneys, and you know the pleasure the minister has when he delivers any goodies or gifts to northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Mr. Germa: This could even be a bigger promotion than when he delivers fire packs or fire trucks. He could put on his hard hat again and his bush boots and his shirt and come charging down the bush road into the community with this cheque from consolidated revenue, and by doubling the amount of the cheque, the impact would have double the political effect.

There is a benefit that the minister might consider, because he does make a lot of impact when he comes into our small communities in northern Ontario with these gifts and goodies.

Mr. Martel: With his Santa Claus suit.

Mr. Germa: And his Santa Claus suit with the fire pack.

So why does the government not consider this as to its benefit? It will have some benefit, of course, to the municipality or to the settlement involved, but that benefit will be minimal compared to the benefits the minister will get because he could play this up to the hilt; he is an expert on this and to that point then I would ask the minister --

Mr. Makarchuk: The minister has been practising for many years.

Mr. Germa: Just think of the impact it would have if he could entice the Premier to come up into this little mining camp with his hard hat on, and that would really sew you up politically. Maybe between the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the minister, both of whom are here and supportive of this legislation, they might intercede.

VISITORS

Mr. Chairman: Just before I recognize another member, I would just like to inform the committee that we have five visitors in the Speaker’s gallery. They are all ministers of community and social services from other provinces.

There is the Honourable Leslie I. Hull of New Brunswick, the Honourable Thomas Hickey of Newfoundland, the Honourable James M. Lee of Prince Edward Island, the Honourable Laird Stirling of Nova Scotia, and the Honourable Tom Sindlinger of Alberta. Would you welcome them.

LOCAL SERVICES BOARDS ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Bolan: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that we are still debating section 24(1), are we not?

Mr. Chairman: That is right.

Mr. Bolan: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the speech I am about to make has been made many times by myself; it has been made several times by other members on this side of the House, but we are going to try to drum it into the minister’s head once again, that what this section does, really, is to seed the destruction of the local services boards.

The minister may recall that when this white paper or blue paper, or whatever it is called, was first released to all of Ontario for all of the members to see, it was quite obvious that what was proposed was a dollar-for-dollar matching agreement. That is to say, for every dollar that was raised by every unorganized --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Things were quiet here for a while but they seem to be getting a little out of hand.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If this particular section is contrary to standing order 15, I would question the member’s right to debate the issue. There is no debate, as far as I am concerned; it is against standing order 15. The Chairman has so ruled.

Mr. Martel: He ruled that you couldn’t move an amendment; he didn’t rule that we couldn’t debate the matter, and in clause-by-clause discussion we can say whatever we want about a section, as long as we are dealing with the section. We respect the chair’s ruling. We accept the ruling that there couldn’t be an amendment, but that doesn’t deny the right of the members to speak to that particular item.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, again your decision is another stroke for democracy which I believe tries to give to the honourable members the right to speak, although the minister does not seem to want that at this time. I can understand why the Minister of Northern Affairs was rather reluctant to discuss this section of the bill, because really this is the guts of the bill. It is this section of the bill which really will put into operation the whole concept of the local services boards. Again, I can understand why he is reluctant even to want to discuss it because he is ashamed he cannot convince his colleagues in cabinet, his colleagues on that side of the House --

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman: Order. There are a great number of private conversations which are quite noisy.

Mr. Bolan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The minister is not able to convince his colleagues in cabinet, and his colleagues on that side of the House, that what is really needed to make the local service boards work is funding on a better basis than that which is proposed through the legislation. What is proposed through the legislation is something that no individual within a local services board can look at and identify as something which he knows he is going to receive for his contribution.

In other words, you are not putting in legislation which you talked about for four months when you went around northern Ontario advocating acceptance of this bill in unorganized communities. At that time, Mr. Minister, you went to some of the meetings yourself and the selling feature of the bill is that for every dollar that was raised by the unorganized townships, by the local services boards, the government would put in a matching dollar.

I accept that. The people in the unorganized communities accepted that as well. That being the case, why don’t you incorporate it in legislation? One step further, why don’t you try to equate it at least to the local roads boards which, as you know, provide for funding on a two-to-one basis?

When a local roads board in an unorganized township determines or decides it is going to make certain improvements to its roads, it knows for every dollar it raises that it is going to get two dollars in return from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

The local services board for that particular unorganized township, which may be trying to improve its lighting service or water service, doesn’t know what it is to raise and doesn’t know how much money is going to be paid to it by the province. They are relying on the whimsical demands of the Minister of Northern Affairs because there is nothing in the bill, there is nothing in the section, which identifies how much money they have to raise to get a project under way.

I am quite certain you may be very well- intentioned when you say, for example, “that the minister shall pay to the board annually out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature such amount as he considers appropriate.” Such amount as the Minister of Northern Affairs considers appropriate. What determines appropriateness? Is it the size or the depth of the pork barrel? Of course not. We, on this side, would never suggest for one moment that this cynical government engages in cynical pork-barrelling. We would never do that. Basically, what you are left with is this --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are giving yourself away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I get the impression you are going back to practise law.

Mr. Roy: Whatever gave you that impression?

Mr. Bolan: You are left with the rule of man as compared with the rule of law. The people in the unorganized townships don’t know what the law is because the minister doesn’t spell it out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He doesn’t spell what out?

Mr. Bolan: As far as I am concerned and as far as this side is concerned, it’s a very simple thing for the minister to do. If he really believes in helping the unorganized townships of northern Ontario, why doesn’t he put into legislation what he and all of his information officers or whatever they are called did, by going around northern Ontario and by saying, “Look, if you want to go to this place and raise so many moneys baking tarts or baking bread or whatever the case may be, then for every loaf of bread you are going to bake and are going to sell and make a dollar, the minister will pay you a dollar in return.” But the legislation does not say that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I say that.

Mr. Bolan: That’s the problem. That is the weakness of the bill and that is what is going to sow the seeds of destruction of the local services boards. It is going to be the manipulation by the rule of man as compared to the rule of law. For some reason or other, on that side they still do not understand what is the rule of law as compared to the rule of man. They have been trying over the past 36 years to manipulate the people of Ontario into believing that what they do as individuals and what they do under the guise of the rule of man is better than the rule of law.

Mr. Makarchuk: Or under the table.

Mr. Bolan: Under the table is right. It’s the pork barrel. Isn’t that exactly what it is when we get right down to it? Mind you, as I said earlier, I would not go across this province and claim this government engages in pork-barrel legislation -- of course not.

Hon. Mr. Pope: That’s what you feel though.

Mr. Bolan: That would be a slur against my colleagues on the other side. But then we have to look at it this way though: what will the people in the community think? Not only must justice be done, but it must appear that justice is being done.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Who told you that?

Mr. Makarchuk: That was coined by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) no doubt.

Mr. Bolan: How can it appear that justice is being done when we have this kind of legislation where an individual, like the minister himself, has said he is the one who is going to determine how much money each municipality is going to get? I say to the minister, with the greatest of respect, that is the weakness of the bill and that is the weakness of the government because the minister doesn’t have the guts to put down what he said earlier this year.

If these local services boards are that important to him, because I know they are very important to the people of UCANO, then he should put into writing precisely how much they are going to get.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Could I have the attention of the House for just a moment? I understand it is the wish of the House leaders to vote on the amendments that are at present before us that have been stacked. It does not appear to me as though we will finish or complete the consideration of this bill this evening.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, I am sure we will.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I know the minister has a few more amendments to make for example, to section 35. I think we should perhaps consider we have gone as far as we are going this evening. Are there more amendments to section 24? I understand there are. The minister may wish to make a reply to the first part of 24. I think we should at this time call for the vote, if the House leaders and other members of the House are agreed.

There is an amendment to section 3(4)(d). I understand the member for Algoma has not withdrawn his motion for an amendment to section 1. That has some consideration on something he has yet to bring forward. Is that right?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it relates to section 29.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think we have agreed, Mr. Chairman, that that would stand over until the end of the vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. We will hold over section 19. With the agreement of the House, I will now put the only motion I understand is still before us.

All those in favour of Mr. Bolan’s amendment to section 3(4)(d) will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

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

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege: During the last two and a half hours we have had the privilege of having in the Speaker’s gallery the members from UCANO West and UCANO East.

This is the third time this group has come down from northeastern and northwestern Ontario to hear the debates on Bill 122. They came here tonight in the hope the bill would be passed and they could go back to northern Ontario and crank up the mechanism that would put into place a piece of legislation that would serve the unorganized communities of northern Ontario.

I regret it didn’t happen, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but I just wanted to point out that they are here in the gallery and I know you want to recognize them.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Nipissing want to speak to the alleged point of privilege?

Mr. Bolan: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, and the alleged point of privilege is this: The last time the members from UCANO were here we were prepared to pass second reading of the bill, until the long-winded Minister of Northern Affairs got into the act and caused it to be put over until today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Wells: With the consent of the House, I would like to ask that we consider government notice of motion 9, standing in my name, which concerns the debate on the report from the resources development committee for Thursday evening. I thought if we had unanimous consent we could have the passing of this motion.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I didn’t hear any objections, sir.

Mr. Martel: I spoke to the government House leader a few moments ago about this, and I am not sure precisely what he is asking us to do now. If he wants simply to move that and indicate that Thursday night we will debate this, and clarify that we are debating on Thursday next the two sections of that first report, that’s fine; but I am not sure what it is the minister is asking the House at this time. Maybe he would elaborate.

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the motion which stands in my name is a motion to split the report, as decided by the parties in this House, so we would debate half of the report from the standing resources development committee this Thursday, and leave the other half of the report for debate later on. Without this technical motion being passed, we will be debating all of the report on Thursday evening.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the suggestion made by the government House leader, we’re prepared to accept the motion at this point so we will, in fact, have something to debate on Thursday evening.

Mr. Speaker: I hope this won’t be taken as a precedent, because we actually need a motion to sit beyond 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: It’s only 10:30 p.m. now.

Mr. Speaker: If it will not create a precedent, I’ll allow you to put your motion.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Thank you, sir, I had hoped I had stood up before 10:30 p.m. but I apologize to you if I didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved resolution 9:

That the order for adoption of the final report of the standing resources development committee on acidic precipitation, abatement of emissions from the International Nickel Company operations at Sudbury, pollution control in the pulp and paper industry and pollution abatement at the Reed paper mill in Dryden be discharged and the following two orders substituted therefor: (1) motion for adoption of parts one and two of the final report of the standing resources development committee on acidic precipitation, abatement of emissions from the International Nickel Company operations at Sudbury, pollution control in the pulp and paper industry and pollution abatement at the Reed paper mill in Dryden; (2) motion for adoption of parts three and four of the standing resources development committee on acidic precipitation, abatement of emissions from the International Nickel Company operations at Sudbury, pollution control in the pulp and paper industry and pollution abatement at the Reed paper mill in Dryden.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.