Hansard Transcripts 1982-Oct-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Municipal Interest and discount rates Act, 1982

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

MUNICIPAL INTEREST AND DISCOUNT RATES ACT, 1982

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 91, An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that a year ago we brought in the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1981, which improved procedures for setting and adjusting penalty, interest and discount rates on overdue and prepaid local taxes. The 1981 statute empowers municipalities to establish their rates at 1½ per cent above the prime rate as an alternative to the standard 15 per cent maximum allowed by the Municipal Act and other related acts.

Procedural changes in the act before us this evening will extend the time available to local authorities for preparing the groundwork in considering adjustment to their rates. They will also relax the notice requirements for rate changes in the same year by permitting a newspaper advertisement instead of a letter to each ratepayer.

In addition, this bill will allow municipalities and local boards to lower their rates in the year for which they were fixed and then subsequently raise them back to the rate initially fixed. This was not provided for in the previous legislation and municipalities were not prone to lower their rates because, if the prime rate went up, they could not raise them back up again.

Also, the bill will allow a municipality to set the rate at any time in the month of December for the following year to give the municipality sufficient lead time for tax bills in some municipalities to go out in January.

Finally, the proposed legislation will allow municipalities to pay interest at such rates as they may wish on tax overpayments which are returned to a taxpayer following the conclusion of a successful appeal of his assessment by that taxpayer.

I commend Bill 91 to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 91.

Before I start, I want to commend the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) for being here. He is the only cabinet minister here tonight.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey : I would not have missed it. I am here because you are here.

Mr. Epp: I know that. The minister and I both had the opportunity yesterday of appearing before about 400 to 500 people in North York. He was in his shining armour among his own constituents and I was coming from outside. They treated me very nicely, they really did.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: We both taught Bob Rae a lesson.

Mr. Epp: That is right. He should have been in York South. He is going to lose that riding now for sure.

Mr. Speaker: Back to Bill 91 now please.

Mr. Epp: Speaking about that would-be member of the Legislature --

Mr. Speaker: No, we are speaking about Bill

91.

Mr. Epp: I notice it says he is going to sell his house after he wins. He wants to move to York South, but he does not have enough confidence to sell his house right now, he wants to wait until after he wins; but he is not going to win, so there is not going to be any transaction as far as that sale is concerned.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, now that you mention it, I think we will --

Mr. Philip: With the interest rates of the federal Liberal Party, you cannot sell any house these days.

Mr. Speaker: And now to Bill 91. Never mind the interjections.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to resist, but on your advice I will.

As far as Bill 91 is concerned, we are going to support it. I think it is somewhat overdue and I would be interested in knowing at the outset, when the parliamentary assistant has a chance to reply, what preparation went into making these changes. What kind of a consultative process did he enter into with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with individual municipalities before these changes were made?

We know these changes have been recommended for some years now by the municipalities and by individuals. I have always found it atrocious that, when individual taxpayers had their taxes changed, having appealed their taxes and the assessments being decreased, despite the fact an individual had won an appeal and had presented the municipality with perhaps hundreds of dollars in overpayment, on appeal he did not gain interest on that money. Now it looks as if the province has finally caught up with some form of reality and such individuals are going to be reimbursed to the extent they should be.

We also know there is a deadline on the time when municipalities may establish their rates for the coming year on overpayments and so forth. I wonder why the government has decided to limit it to December, because the way the law reads at present, they have to be able to establish those rates in the current year. Now, the government, in its magnanimous approach to municipalities, is going to let them make these mammoth decisions in December, just before Christmas, rather than wait until January. I wonder why the government did not take the full step and let them do it at their own pleasure rather than limit them to December of the previous year.

This is a fairly straightforward bill. We have no real difficulty with it except, as I say, on some of the questions that come to mind with respect to the bill. We will be supporting it during second reading.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, we will support the bill. But in doing so I want to express some reservations I have about it. Our support of the bill is based essentially on the premise that many of our municipalities, like everyone else in our society, have been caught in the turmoil of the interest rates. The federal government's inability to provide any long-term stability and growth is manifested in many municipal councils and creates a problem that is actually new to them and that never really took on much proportion. We have seen the actions last year, and again this year with this bill where the province is attempting to rectify the situation.

8:10 p.m.

In the last year or so a number of people in municipal government have pointed out, rather ruefully, that the problem with unpaid taxes is that people found it was much better for them, financially, not to pay their property tax and to leave their money in the bank. The municipality was unable to react to that in the way of fines or interest rates or penalties of any kind, so there was no incentive for someone in arrears to pay the taxes; quite the contrary, there was a great financial incentive not to pay property taxes and to leave that money in the bank, reap the benefits of the federal interest rate policy and just leave it at that.

Many municipalities were caught in the awkward position of having people in their municipalities who had let their property taxes get into arrears. All sides were looking at the same issue and saying: "This is ridiculous. Here are people who owe property taxes. They are given a real financial incentive by the interest rate policies of the federal government not to pay their taxes, and it appears that there is damned little we can do about it."

This year's revision to the act provides municipalities with a little more flexibility. On that basis one can accept this as a proposal which attempts to give municipalities some refinement in the system and it is hoped it will provide a little more fairness.

I want to say a couple of words on the negative side because I have some reservations about the bill. I trust there will not be municipal councils out there -- probably it would not be the councils themselves but rather their financial advisers or staff people -- that will take a look at the way this act is written and perhaps will urge the municipalities to exploit this act to its fullest.

One of the problems I have is that the intent of the act is noble. The intent of the act is to try to take municipalities out of that straitjacket surrounding interest rates, and to give them the tools to deal fairly and flexibly with the problem they have. If the intent of the act is followed to the nth degree, if no one decides to get fancy with the numbers, if no one uses it to reap additional moneys for municipalities, it will be all right and none of us will be embarrassed by the provisions of this act.

But there are substantial matters which cause me some concern in this day and age when everybody out there, every property taxpayer, certainly, feels extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of the banking system, the federal government, and interest rates in particular. We may be adding to their problems by adding something which could be used unfairly.

If a municipality decided it really wanted to reap some money, the act could be used in a punitive sense. The argument could be that it is focusing on a group of people who, without question, are attempting not to pay what they rightfully owe in property taxes. If it is limited to that group, it may not cause us a problem at all, because those are ratepayers who are in arrears and may be wilfully trying to avoid paying what they properly owe.

The difficulty is that in a number of our municipalities, my own for example, the economic times are such that there will be people who do not want to be but will be in arrears with their property taxes. Therein lies the rub. In normal times one could look at a bill like this and simply say: "We are offering a little flexibility here, a little more fairness than before. We are trying to get them out of a problem area which is relatively new to us and so we have changed this act. Fairness will apply, and if there is some unfairness in it, it will apply to a relatively small group of people and, indeed, to a group of people who should be paying their property taxes anyway."

Where I see we may be getting into a bit of a problem is that in many of our municipalities there are good, God-fearing, decent property taxpayers who do not have the ability to pay their property tax. I know that members opposite will probably wax and wane a bit about all the little schemes this government has to see that senior citizens get a little rebate here, and that other members of our society get little cheques here, there and all over the place, to try to alleviate their situation. In the Income Tax Act and elsewhere, attempts are made to soften the blow so that those who are having difficulty paying property tax will get some relief from it.

The fundamental problem in that is it may be all well and good in normal times, but we are now in a period when an increasing number of people are being laid off; certainly in every industrialized centre in the south, where layoffs are dramatic and the production facilities of our industrial heartland are sometimes running at 40 or 50 per cent of capacity. In my area, we are going to go through a period of time between now and next spring when a substantial amount of our industrial capacity will not be used and the people who pay these property taxes will not have an income that will allow them to meet their obligations.

In many areas of northern Ontario, particularly one-industry towns like the Sudbury basin, there is going to be a dramatic increase. There are people who would be happy to be working, making a living and paying their property taxes promptly, instead of being susceptible to fines, interest rates or the penalties that may come, but we are going to see an increasing number of people who will not be able to do that.

There are all kinds of funny little splits in here. There will be a number of home owners, like myself, who will have property taxes included in the mortgage rate. There are still a rather large number of people who do not want to do it that way or, as in my own situation, a number of people who have never done it that way. They perhaps own their homes, but property taxes are becoming a significant factor in their income and they are going to have a problem.

In my municipality, as in most industrialized towns, auto centres in particular, everybody understands the cyclical nature of the auto industry. When I was on the council, it was one of the few municipalities in Ontario that put on the front of its budget book what was happening in the auto industry that year. We understood that any variation in the auto industry, whether it was some kind of labour dispute, a slump in the market or a design change, anything like that, had an immense financial impact on that community. For example, in a year like this one we knew there were going to be a lot of people who were going to have a little bit of difficulty meeting their obligations as far as property taxes were concerned.

In my community it has always been the policy that, when we get into times like that, the municipality had better understand that it is not that people do not want to pay their taxes, it is that they do not have the ability to pay them. So there has always been an agreement reached by the council that, in difficult financial situations like this, it is the obligation of the municipality to understand that, and to understand that when these people get back to work, when the layoffs are over and spring rolls around, they will regain that ability to pay their property taxes.

There have been a number of examples in many of our industrial centres where the councils did the practical, pragmatic thing. They simply said: 'The reason we are not getting our property taxes this year is not because people do not want to pay, but because they do not have the ability to pay. We can get mean and nasty about this, put fines on them, charge them for being in arrears or punish them with interest rates" -- as would be proposed under this bill -- "but that is not sensible and it is not fair and we will not do that."

By various little techniques, with a wink and a nod, they have said, "We understand why you are not keeping your property taxes up to date and when the strike is over, when the layoff is over, we expect you to come and pay them." Frankly, in my community, the track record on that is extremely good. People have understood that their council was trying to help them out of some economic duress. The council was counting on them to come in when the disruption in their lives was over and make up the money. There were no penalties attached to it for the most part. It seems to have been an accepted part of that community.

This is where I have a little difficulty with this bill. I suppose it all depends on precisely how the municipalities react to it. In many of the municipalities I have talked to recently they understand that when plants are shut down, when, as in my own community, whole shifts are gone and when, in fact, physical plants are gone that were there a year ago, they cannot get blood from a stone and they cannot collect tax money from a citizen who has no income. They understand that, and I think there will be the sensitivity I want.

The problem I have with the bill -- and I hope this will not happen; I feel reasonably confident it will not, or I would not have recommended to my colleagues in my own caucus that we support it -- is that municipal councils might abuse the alterations that have been proposed in here.

Going through the fine print of the bill, and we will not want to do that in second reading debate, in my view there is potential here for some things to happen that are clearly wrong. I accept that one intent of the bill is to protect municipalities from abuses, and I hope that is precisely how it will be used. I accept that another intent of the bill is to reflect the uncertain economic times we are in and that municipalities should not be put into a punished position, so to speak, for what are policies of the federal government or of the chartered banks. I hope that is exactly how this bill will be exercised in practice. I did want to get on the record my concerns about the practical ramifications of that.

8:20 p.m.

I do see that it would be possible and perhaps even defensible for a municipality to take a look at its rolls, at the penalty provisions and the interest rate adjustments that are here, and have their financial advisers say, "Listen, we are a little short of cash this year, and one thing we have now is the ability to adjust, to pick up a little extra cash here and there." I am sure there will be people in financial administration, certainly in the major cities, who will be directed by their councils to take a look at everything the municipality does and start to really tighten up.

There will be some hard-line trickle-down folks on municipal councils: unfortunately, I am reasonably sure that is going to happen. If those people get into public office, forget the economic times we are in and decide that their thing for this next year or so is to exploit every piece of legislation that allows them to extract money from the population at large and to do it with fervour, then I think we will have done a disservice here.

I accept the basic problem that is there, and I accept the premise on which this legislation is based. Based on my conversations with people on municipal councils, I remain firmly convinced that they will not abuse it, that this is an attempt to rectify a problem they had, that it was done with some consultation, and that although it does not have exactly everything they wanted in it and is perhaps not a perfect system, it is better than what was in place before.

We will support the bill, but we wanted to put on the record of the House the reservations we had about it. We trust that we will not be back in the spring session pointing Out that abuses are taking place. I hope that will not happen. I am aware that the potential is there, and I simply make the plea to municipalities that are exercising their rights under this bill to do so with some caution and to recognize that even though they have a three-year term to buffer it, there are a lot of people in a lot of municipalities who are good, decent folks who want to pay their taxes but who, at least temporarily, I hope, have lost their ability to do all the things they want to do.

As long as municipalities take that into account, we will support the bill. We think it will solve one or two problems; we are just making the argument that in an attempt to solve one or two problems, let us not create half a dozen serious ones on the way.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say. As our municipal critic has said, we support this bill; however, as the Metro spokesman for the New Democratic Party I want to add another cautionary note, if I might, and ask the parliamentary assistant whether this is possible.

I have concerns about the potential dangers to individuals in a place like Windsor. We have heard that as many as 1,100 homes or properties could be taken over at this time for arrears; that there is a danger, with the financial crunch the municipalities are in now because of the slowing down of the pass-through of dollars from the provincial level and other kinds of financial concerns they are running into, there may be some pressure from advisers to those councils to move more quickly than we might like to take over those kinds of properties.

There is another thing I wish to know. At the same time as we are watching that in the next number of months, the fifth principal feature in the bill, that "municipalities will be allowed to pay interest at such rate as they wish on tax overpayments," is one we have not had in the past. There was no mandate for the municipality to pay interest on somebody's overpayment of taxes after he had successfully appealed an assessment. I wonder whether this is going to be dealt with as it is by the banks, where one's savings amount is quicker to drop and slower to rise than with one's loan payments.

I wonder whether we could keep an eye on exactly what the practice of municipalities is in determining how much interest they will actually pay on overpayments. I notice in the bill that is just subject to a bylaw which a municipality may choose to pass and which would be defined as that council sees fit, but obviously it could be possible to have three per cent interest being paid to somebody for an overpayment in taxes at the same time that the municipality was charging 12 per cent when somebody was failing to pay sufficient tax.

I would like to know how the parliamentary assistant would see this being handled or monitored over the next period of time.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 91 , An Act to revise the Municipal Interest and Discount Rates Act, 1981.

There is a question I want to raise for the parliamentary assistant. As I interpret it, the bill allows the interest rates to fluctuate with the prime rate of the bank, perhaps one or two per cent less than that.

Many municipalities today have a healthy reserve set aside for some special time when they want to spend some money on a special project. Sometimes they can accumulate money over four, five and even 10 years which sits there as a reserve fund. I think of the Niagara region, for example, as one municipality that has a healthy reserve fund sitting there now which they do not know what to do with. I understand they borrow from that reserve fund to help cover some of the expenses during the current municipal year. They perhaps borrow at a pretty favourable rate.

I wonder whether it would not be worth while to put something in the bill that would cover that situation which would say that at least they would pay the interest rate that would be charged those persons who can afford to pay their municipal taxes and who are paying one per cent below the prime rate. In a sense, they are paying a double form of taxation. In one place, they can overtax them and then they can turn around and borrow from that fund at a very low interest rate.

What I am trying to convey to the parliamentary assistant is, if they can borrow from that fund at 12 per cent, why can the bill not be set at 12 per cent? I do not think they should have it two ways.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) had started to discuss and to throw in a few cautions.

We are going to support the bill. We understand and support the basic principle of the bill. We had a debate in the Hamilton city council on this issue last year, and it turned into a very bitter debate. It was bitter because there were two perspectives, and both perspectives had merits. Unfortunately, the bill deals only with one.

I want to throw in a caution. I wish to be assured that the ministry is going to monitor it very closely. One of the two perspectives, simply put, was that there were some people who were abusing the system by intentionally withholding their property taxes, leaving the money in the bank, getting high interest and having to pay only 12 per cent on their overdue taxes.

During the course of the debate at Hamilton city council, that point was put very forcefully, as well as the point that the city had to go out and debenture the shortfall in the taxes it collected and pay interest on those debentures. It is all valid, understandable and reasonable that we want to deal with that situation.

On the other hand, there was the other camp, which said: "Yes, there are some people out there who are abusing this economic situation wherein the limitation is placed on the municipality, but the vast majority of the increasing number of people who are falling behind in their property taxes are falling behind because of the economic situation we are in with the increasing unemployment. Through this process, we are going to add to the hardship which those people are having imposed on them by having lost the job they have had for 15 or 20 years or whatever the case happened to be." That is also a valid matter to consider.

8:30 p.m.

I am not sure how it could have been done, but I would have liked to have seen something specific in this bill which created a clearer obligation on the part of municipalities to consider hardship cases in relation to property taxes.

I did want to make those points and to add that caution to what my colleague the member for Oshawa had said. Although this bill has merit and we are going to support it, over the course of the next two or three of four years, depending on how long this economic recession we are in lasts, some very nasty and very unfortunate situations are liable to erupt in a number of municipalities across the province, bringing about some very nasty fights on municipal councils, and there are likely to be some very angry home owners who, through no fault of their own, are temporarily unable to pay their property taxes.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members opposite for their support of the bill. I will try to briefly deal with the matters raised.

The member for Waterloo-North (Mr. Epp) asked about consultation. I point out to him that almost all municipal bills are sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and copies are sent to all the approximately 800 municipalities in the province, as this one was. We received a number of replies, all of them favourable, some suggesting some technical amendments or changes.

Basically, there was no opposition to the bill from the municipalities. Some wanted more flexibility, some wanted to be able to set their own rates, but basically there was no opposition to this from the municipalities, and certainly not from AMO or the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.

The honourable member also asked why we put this to December. I point out that moving it back to December is permissive, not mandatory. Until now, they could not pass a bylaw until January 1. Now they can pass it in January, but they can pass it earlier if they wish to. It is not mandatory to do it in December, it is simply permissive in December; if it takes effect before March 31 it gives a municipality a little more lead time to get its tax bills printed with the penalties or the interest rates on them.

Mr. Epp: It is not permissive to November?

Mr. Rotenberg: It is to December only. We do not want to give municipalities too much lead time, especially these days with rates fluctuating. We want to have them set rates within a reasonable time of when they are going to take effect.

The member for Oshawa and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) raised the really significant problem of making sure those people who have money do not put their money in the bank and collect a higher rate of interest than they are paying as a penalty. Yes, there is the problem of those who cannot afford their taxes.

Unfortunately, much as we all like to, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot legislate one law for the poor and one law for the rich. In this permissive legislation -- and I stress it is permissive legislation -- we have to set out the rules and regulations under which a municipality operates, but it is permissive.

If Oshawa, Hamilton or any other municipality, even part way through the year, decides in its wisdom that because of high unemployment or whatever that the penalty should be reduced, it can then by bylaw reduce the penalty. They can even charge no penalty if they wish, but that is a decision of the local municipality. On all sides of the House we believe in a certain amount of local autonomy, and that decision should be made by the local council.

I say to the member for Hamilton Mountain, if Hamilton city council has a debate about this, whatever the decision, that is democracy and I think the Legislature should allow that municipal democracy to work.

The member for Oshawa was somewhat worried about abuse or exploiting of the system. I point out that the basic philosophy of the bill was passed by this Legislature last year with all that in it. This year we are really making sure there is a little less of that possibility of exploitation by fixing the bill up somewhat.

There is a cap on interest rates. One thing we have put in, and I think this assists the member for Oshawa, is an encouragement for the municipality to lower its rates if prime rates come down, because now it can raise them back up again if the prime goes up, which it could not do in the previous bill.

The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was talking about foreclosures on people with tax arrears and so on. I point out that this is not in any way the subject of this bill. This bill deals only with the interest rates; tax sales and so on are matters of other legislation. Whereas a municipality may have a tax sale after a certain period of time under various processes, it does not have to. If the municipality in its wisdom decides not to enforce that provision because of economic conditions, it does not have to. We would be monitoring those situations.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) talked about a municipality borrowing from its own reserve fund. Again, that has nothing to do with this legislation, but if a municipality has its reserve somewhere else and it wants to use it for something else, we certainly do not control a municipality transferring funds in effect from one bank account to another. With respect, it really has little to do with what interest it may charge on overdue taxes.

With those comments, I hope I have dealt with the questions raised by the members opposite. I thank them again for their support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 93, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains two changes in the present Public Utilities Act. The first change would remove the three-month limitation on municipal utilities in the collection of arrears by means of a lien on the land of the owner or the goods of a tenant.

At present, in some municipalities utilities read meters only once or twice a year. If the ratepayer fails to pay his bill, the arrears can easily run to six months or a year before the utility has the opportunity to discontinue the service and press for payment. The present statutory three-month limitation on the securing of arrears by a lien makes it difficult for utilities to collect the full amount of arrears in some cases. Any shortfall, of course, may be picked up through higher utility rates.

The other side of that coin is where there is a three-month limitation, a municipality would be more prone to shut off the service at the end of the three-month period. If the municipality or the utility knows it can put on a lien for an overdue bill for six, seven or eight months, as it can under the new legislation, it would be my opinion that, especially in these times, the municipality would be less prone to cut the hydro or water off because it knows it can get it later, if not sooner.

The second amendment would delete a reference to Ontario Hydro. At present, Hydro is empowered to collect utility arrears under the Power Corporation Act as well as the Public Utilities Act. This has caused some confusion. We feel the removal of the reference to Ontario Hydro in the Public Utilities Act will make it clear that the corporation should proceed under the Power Corporation Act.

With these small changes in the act, which I think are basically technical, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, there are just two changes. It is a fairly technical alteration to what is there now.

I am curious as to what instigated this change. In other words, there must have been a particular philosophy that went into the way the act was drafted a few years ago and why there was the three-month limitation. All of a sudden, some pressure has been brought upon the government, or some changes have been made, because obviously those three-month limitations were in there for a purpose and now they are being changed. I have no difficulty with that, but I am curious to see the sudden change in philosophy now that the three-month limitation is being taken off.

There is another question I want to ask the parliamentary assistant. Ontario Hydro will be exempted from some parts of this act and placed under section 73 of the Power Corporation Act, which it is currently under, and it will be dealt with under that section. I wonder whether there are any differences. In other words, will Ontario Hydro be favoured more under the Power Corporation Act than it is currently under this legislation? Is it because it will be more favoured under that legislation that it has requested the change?

I know from my committee work on the Planning Act, and the parliamentary assistant was there, that under the Planning Act, Bill 159, Ontario Hydro was in there lobbying for favoured status, and with the government majority it looks as if they will get that favoured status. We know over the years that they have always had favoured status in the province as opposed to other utility corporations or whatever, and often even in comparison with other government agencies, boards and commissions.

I just wonder what favoured status they will get if we enact this particular bill today, since they will be exempted from this act and placed only under section 73 of the Power Corporation Act.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good example of how your view of economics changes your mind in a number of other fields as well. If someone had come to me with this provision a short while ago, perhaps even while I was on a local council and times were not quite as tough as they are now, I would have looked at a bill like this and said: "This just provides some kind of equal status to different agencies that are out there, and it kind of runs parallel situations. If it is possible for a municipality to put a lien against a property, perhaps it ought to be possible for a local public utilities commission to do the same thing."

One would have looked at this kind of bill and repeated the old cliché: "This is housekeeping. It puts things on a parallel basis. It does not change the world substantially. It looks at a situation that is relatively rare; that is, when any form of government puts a lien on someone's property."

I have heard the argument made that putting a lien against a property is the kind thing to do. Generally, I think this concept came about when people were dealing with elderly taxpayers who had a piece of property that might have considerable value but did not have a lot of income.

The argument was made at that time, at least to me, that what this really does is, first, it allows them to postpone the paying of a bill by using the technique of putting a lien against a property so that they do not have to get out of their house and sell it to pay off a bill of some kind.

The second argument made to me was that this really postpones it into the dealing with that estate, so that when that person dies the property will escalate in value -- the theory was -- and when the lawyers sit down to chop up the estate, the municipality will eventually get its money. It will not do any harm to the taxpayer, because he will be in the ground; it might take a little bit of cash away from others who were mentioned in the will.

When that argument was made to me some years ago, my feeling was that I did not like the idea of a PUC or a municipality putting a lien against someone's property, but probably for very pragmatic reasons that was the way to handle the situation. The municipality would continue to provide the individual property owner with a service; in return, it would get something that is like collateral, and sooner or later all parties would have their needs met. The individual property owner, for the immediate future anyway, would have the service provided to his household. In this instance I suppose it would mean that nobody was going to bang on the door and shut off the utility -- the gas, the water or whatever is provided to them -- that little lien process would put that possibility aside.

In happy economic times I think I would have said to my colleagues in caucus: "Listen, this is just a little housekeeping procedure here. It is a matter that gives a PUC under the Public Utilities Act something a municipality has under other acts. We have not seen any dramatic bad things happen; so why not support it and deal with it in that way?"

The difficulty I have with this is very similar to the one I had with the previous bill, and I guess it points out where my personal set of dividing lines are, how far I am prepared to go in saying that I trust that everybody in government these days is going to be kind and benevolent and reasonable. Where I draw my line is in saying, "Yes, but I do not trust the rest of the world that much either."

What I said to my caucus was, "Whether or not this is a small bill that is not going to have a lot of ramifications, I just do not think this is the time to be going around making provisions for putting liens on property." I have a little bit of reluctance about that, understandably, because once again we are talking about people who are not paying their obligations, their debts.

If members want my personal compromise, in the previous bill I said: "Okay, that is not going to have a significant impact. I hope municipalities will use their new flexibility wisely and well." But I am drawing the line here. In essence, I am saying we oppose this bill.

We understand the reasons behind it. We understand the consultation that has gone on, but I am putting forward basic, hard-nosed reality. There are a lot of folks out there who are going to have some difficulty in meeting any kind of bill these days. When it comes to putting a lien against their property, I accepted the argument in good times that this would not impose an economic hardship on a particular property owner. It is a pragmatic device used so that a municipality, or in this case a public utility, has the ability to get some collateral, and will not be shutting off the water, the electricity or the gas, or whatever it is providing through its public utilities commission, to solve some problems there.

An argument was made to me in my own caucus by several of my colleagues who said, "That is okay for an individual property owner, but there are instances" -- and I know there are -- "where tenants in a building suffer for the actions of the owner of the building." In many of our municipalities, the owners of the building do not necessarily have to live in that municipality and do not necessarily have to have a whole lot of care for the people who are their tenants. They bought the building as a business and they deal with it in that way.

They trade buildings just as I would trade bubble-gum cards. Some guys trade apartment buildings; so they could not care less whether the PUC is going to come and shut off the water, that is of no concern to them. What they have is an entity -- pieces of paper is probably the closest and most accurate way to describe it for those folks. They are trading pieces of paper back and forth, and the paying of bills becomes an expense. The old profit maxim rolls in there. What they like to do is make money, not pay it out to anybody for anything.

In my own community, I have people who own apartment buildings and who do not see a hell of a lot of sense in paying bills, especially public utility bills. It is not of a great deal of concern to them whether the building is in good shape or bad shape, whether the water is on or off. They are not too worried about whether there is electricity in the building. They understand the laws of Ontario are a little tough for tenants these days; and to try to get some of them to pay their bills is difficult; to try to get the provision of essential services in an apartment building is not easy, that is a bit of a struggle.

I know there are people out there who exploit those laws. They know it is tough for a municipality, or for anybody for that matter, to get them to pay this kind of bill. They will exploit that. There are also those who are a long way away from that physical situation. To them an apartment building on Park Road in Oshawa is a piece of paper. Many of them have never been there, have never met anybody who lived there, do not care, and have the property for purposes of selling. There are problems with folks of that nature.

The ones I am concerned about, though, are the individual property owners. I can think of a number of people in my own town. I know they are people such as I described in discussions on the other bill, industrial workers who are taking the brunt of the economic recession now. The one thing they have, many of them, is a house that is paid for. That is it. Some of them will have a few bucks in the bank, but none of them I have ever met has a big retirement account in a bank benefiting from high interest rates.

These people have what 15 or 20 years ago was seen to be the rightful expectation of an ordinary human being, a worker in a plant: they went out and bought houses -- in those days one bought a house for about what one pays for a brand-new car these days -- and the houses have been paid for a long time.

Their houses are the principal asset those human beings have. They use that asset in a number of ways. The foremost one is to have a roof over their heads, a little bit of shelter. That is their prime concern. Most of them are extremely proud of their homes. They may not be grand mansions but they are clean, they are painted, they are trimmed. People have little gardens in the back.

Their pride and joy is their house. These days that pride and joy, that house, is taking on a new perspective, because many of these people are auto workers who made bumpers for 30 years and do not have any money in the bank. What they have is a house.

The asset they have, the thing that might get them through this recessionary period, is the house. The difficulty is that we have gone from a situation where it was seen, by me at least, to be something that will be argued at a lawyer's office 20 years from now, to something which encumbers the use of that property as an asset.

8:50 p.m.

The present hard times dictate to many people in my community and in many others. Across Ontario people are getting out of their homes. Not because they want to; that clearly is not the case. Not because they have found someplace better to live, as used to be the case. And not that they want to move into a larger home with fancier brickwork around the doorway. The fact is they have to sell the house. What this bill does, simple and straightforward as it may be, is to put a lien against that house.

For someone who is a professional person, for somebody who is an investor, the lawyers will be out there querying these things, which will be seen as rather small matters for the most part. But for an individual who is trying to sell the house in tough economic times, the bill encumbers the sale of that house.

Though that may not seem a major thing to most members here, it is for those affected; even a small lien, one for a relatively small amount of money. If the person had the money to pay the utility, there would not be a lien against his property. What this bill does is to take away one of his options. At the very least it restricts them. One of the options the owner had was to take that asset, that house that had been socked away over the years, and to sell it and get out of a debt position. But this bill puts a lien against it.

Many members here would look at that and say: "A lien against a house is nothing. We will handle that in a couple of hours. I will call my lawyer, who will call another lawyer. Cheques will pass in the banks and that is it." But that is not it for a lot of people. They are unaccustomed to such dealings, they do not understand the process and may not have the cash.

So what may have started out as a very simple premise -- "Put some fairness out there, provide the same rules to all of the agencies that are at work in Ontario's municipalities" -- in practice may prove to be something that is going to cause individual home owners in Ontario a lot of grief. That is my concern. That is where I am drawing the line for myself and I recommend to my caucus that is where we draw the line as a caucus.

We are prepared to say that municipalities must have some flexibility around interest rates. That is okay. But we do not want to see municipalities or public utilities commissions go to the extent of putting on liens. Normally I would agree with it; normally I would not have a problem with that. But in the present economic conditions I have to recognize that this is doing something to ordinary citizens that I do not want done. This is putting liens against properties and I do not think that is necessary.

I guess I am really expressing my own values in the political system. I expect a public utilities commission to act and react to economic times differently from anybody else in the private sector. If it is a public utility which was bought, paid for and operated with public funds, I expect it to be just a bit more sensitive in tough economic times to the needs of our citizens.

After all, they are the folks who, when they were working, when they were making bumpers in Houdaille Industries Ltd., paid the taxes that brought that utility to town. They are the folks who paid the tax money in property taxes and in provincial income tax. They are the people who made this province wealthy. They created that wealth in the factories and they did it the hard way with the sweat of their brow.

All I am saying is now, in tough times, what I want is for the people who built those public utilities to reap some benefit from them; to get in tough economic times a break that perhaps they normally would not get, or perhaps should not get. I am saying that because they are public utilities they have that added dimension of social responsibility. That is why I am opposing this bill.

There is one other small reason that I want thrown into the mix: the little section about Ontario Hydro which, in a strange and perverted way, says that Ontario Hydro is not a public utility, it is a different animal. We have gone around the block many times before about the wonderfulness of Ontario Hydro and does anybody really run that show over there and is there a minister. There certainly is not a minister on the front bench tonight who is in control of Hydro, or anybody who pretends to be. But even on a good day when the front benches are full, we search continually for the minister of the crown who has Hydro in his grasp.

Over there tonight we have somebody who got mugged in the halls by Hydro, but we do not have anybody over there tonight who can say, "Yes, I used to be the minister who ran Ontario Hydro.

The other little provision in this bill says in principle, "Ontario Hydro is not a public utility." I have to argue that I believe in my world and in my thinking Ontario Hydro is as much a public utility as the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission, put together in much the same way through tax dollars. It is purportedly a utility which was established, developed, operates and provides services for the public and is in a very real sense owned by the public.

I may be naïve but I happen to think that is probably why it is called a public utility and why Ontario Hydro is called Ontario Hydro. It is supposed to be a big thing across the road over there which was bought a long time ago, paid for and built up over the years by the citizens of Ontario. One of the things I expect from them is that they should operate under the same rules, with no differences, as any other public utility in Ontario. I want the same rules to apply to Hydro as apply to anybody else.

That is my second little problem with this bill. I recognize there are good, probably pragmatic, reasons for the bill. Perhaps some members might think I have spoken at some length about a bill that really does not deserve that kind of attention.

I want to say in closing that I believe the members of the Legislature in these times have an obligation to look at everything that comes in front of us and to look for the good side and the bad side and to weigh all of the decisions that we make. It is not that I anticipate that public utilities commissions around Ontario are going to go out and immediately slap a lien against every unemployed auto worker in Oshawa. I am fairly convinced they will not do that, but I am saying to bring this one back to me three, four, five years from now when I hope this economy is booming and I will look at this kind of bill in an entirely different light.

Now is not a time in Ontario to make any changes however small, however minute, which might take on ramifications which are not really thought through, which might put a burden on people who are clinging to their sole asset. They have lost their jobs, they have lost their dignity. The one thing they have is their house and some small number of them may be able to use that asset as something that will pull them out of the hole.

This particular proposal is not huge in scope but it is something which I believe has some very real ramifications for just ordinary folks down the road. I think it is the duty of members to keep an eye out for these little things. Sometimes what appears to us as an insignificant little alteration to an act turns out to be, for some very real human being in economic duress, the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is my concern with this bill and that is why we as a caucus and I as an individual will oppose this legislation.

Mr. Rotenberg: To deal with the matters raised, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) asks what was the logic of the three-month lien. I must confess that I think the reasons for that are lost in antiquity. It has been that way for an awfully long time and, for reasons I will explain again in a moment in answer to the member for Oshawa, we feel that three-month limitation is not really proper for these modern times.

Both members asked about a favoured status for Ontario Hydro. I would indicate, as far as I can ascertain, the staff can ascertain and lawyers can ascertain, there is exactly the same power in the two acts -- the Public Utilities Act and the Power Corporation Act. It is just that Hydro does not have to be covered under two acts. If it is covered under one act, it is sufficient.

To the member for Oshawa, I say that simply because Hydro is not mentioned in the Public Utilities Act for a specific purpose does not mean that Hydro is not a public utility. It is still very much a public utility and one of the ones of which all members of the Legislature can be very proud.

The same rules apply to Ontario Hydro as to municipal utilities but we do not need to have the rules twice n legislation. That is why we are taking it out of one of these bills.

9 p.m.

I am somewhat intrigued and a little bit surprised at the argument made by the member for Oshawa. I agree with a lot of what he says. He is right except that he comes to exactly the wrong conclusion, because if he believes what he says he should be supporting this bill, except for one thing. If the member is saying that in hard times people should not have to pay their utility bills, if the burden of his argument is that if someone is out of a job he should not have to pay the utility bills and the taxpayers who have money should subsidize him by paying the utility bills out of taxes, I do not agree with it. If that is his argument, so be it.

But if he says people should still be responsible for their obligations and that people sooner or later -- and probably later if there are tough times -- have to pay the utility bills, I would suggest he should be out in front saying, "Rah rah, this is a great bill to help people."

As I indicated briefly in my opening remarks, right now all municipalities or public utilities can put a lien on a property if the bill is not paid, but they can put a lien on for only three months. So the utility is going to slap the lien on right away. If the member for Oshawa objects to a lien, he should be giving utilities flexibility as we are doing in this bill.

We are saying: "Hey fellows, at the end of 90 days you do not have to slap on a lien to protect yourself. You can put it on six, eight, 12 or 15 months from now. You have time to put on the lien. Give the property owner a chance to pay his bills. Give him a chance to get out of his problem."

If we keep the legislation as it is now, the municipality has only two choices, to put the lien on or to shut off the utility. They do not want to shut it off. They may rather not put the lien on and, therefore, the member for Oshawa would be supporting this bill which says to the municipality, "You do not have to put the lien on right away; you have time."

We talk about the problems if a lien is put on. It really is not very complicated. If there is a sale of the property. in the adjustment the lawyers adjust overdue hydro bills whether there is a lien or not. The lien is automatically taken off. If a lien is put on by a utility and the property owner in good time pays it back, the utility releases the lien. It is not all that complicated. It is not a serious matter at all.

The member for Oshawa says, "The members of the public have this one asset, their homes, and they want to use this asset to pull themselves out of a hole." I agree. But they should also be able to use this asset to protect their hydro, water, gas or whatever, to protect their public utility from being turned off. That is exactly what the bill says. One can use one's house as security to pull oneself out of the hole. One can use one's house to say, 'This is my security that I will pay my hydro or water bill when things get better." Because we extend the time, the municipality, the utility does not have to put a lien on them. They have time.

Therefore, I would suggest the member reconsider his position and support this bill to allow those people who are in trouble now the flexibility of keeping their utilities turned on. With those remarks, I ask the support of the House on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg : Mr. Speaker, this bill amends several regional acts in many ways. Some of these have already been passed in the Municipal Act we passed in the spring. Some provisions of the bill are as follows.

The interest accumulated rate on debentures, sinking and retirement funds will be raised from five per cent to eight per cent in all regions. That is for calculating how they deal with their sinking funds. The bill will qualify the right of those regions that provide direct water and sewer services to collect amounts owing on utility bills as taxes. In those regions that provide sewage treatment plants to treat sewage collected by area municipalities, the regions will be able to pass bylaws setting out terms and conditions for accepting septic tank waste transported to the facilities.

The regions of Durham and Halton will gain stronger waste disposal powers and will also, along with the region of Waterloo, be able to produce and sell energy from waste. The bill will allow the Ontario Municipal Board to divide or redivide the school divisions in Ottawa-Carleton into zones upon application by either the Ottawa school board or petition by the public school electors. This will then make the Ottawa school division similar to any other ward boundaries throughout the province.

The bill will also eliminate the need in certain cases for an area municipality in the region to obtain Ontario Municipal Board approval of sewer and transit rates levied by the area municipality. The bill also corrects certain references in particular regional acts, simplifies road closing procedures in Halton and will revise certain boundary descriptions in Waterloo.

I have one amendment which appears four times in the bill and which I will pass to the opposition critics. Therefore, after the bill has second reading, I would request this go to committee of the whole House to introduce those amendments.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, when these amendments come up for regional municipalities I am always curious as to what philosophy the government is espousing in introducing them. As is known, we have An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities which comes up in the spring. We have another one which comes up in the fall. Next spring I expect we will have another and next fall another. At worst, we have one per session. We often have two of them. We have these acts that come up on a fairly regular basis and we keep bringing new amendments in. I am curious as to why these amendments are coming forth.

Is it the purpose or intention of the government to bring in complete uniformity among all the regional municipalities in the province? Is it its intention to make sure the region of Ottawa- Carleton is exactly the same as the regions of Waterloo, Halton, Durham, Niagara and so forth to the point where it can make them uniform?

We notice it is encouraging a lot of regional municipalities to build large edifices. I know my colleague from Niagara has often spoken very eloquently against the edifice the regional municipality is building in honour of its chairman and other members.

They want to enshrine, to make sure that nobody in the next thousand years will ever dare think of removing any regional municipality from this great earth of Ontario. Right across from that great university, Brock University, they have this great edifice. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money spent at a time when restraint should be practised and the regions, at the encouragement of the province, are building these large structures.

Of course, there is no referendum being taken before this expenditure is made. Mr. Speaker, I know you would be opposed to this extravagance but certainly a lot of your colleagues are encouraging it.

Interjection.

Mr. Epp: Maybe in his own riding he would be in favour of it, or opposed; I am not sure what that means.

Mr. Rotenberg: Now back to the bill.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt him. Maybe he could --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I am enjoying this.

Mr. Epp: Another point inherent in this piece of legislation is that what we are doing here is taking more powers away from the local municipalities and giving them to the regions. I know it is only a little and there is a certain amount of uniformity being brought in, but when the uniformity is being injected in these pieces of legislation it is always at the expense of the local municipalities.

I challenge the member for Wilson Heights to give us a single example where uniformity has been brought in through legislation involving regional and local municipalities and, where there is a change of responsibility, where the sacrifice is not made by the local municipality rather than by the regional municipality. I dare the parliamentary assistant to the absent member for Ottawa -- what is his riding?

Mr. Boudria: Ottawa South.

9:10 p.m.

Mr. Epp: -- the absent member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) to give us one single, solitary example where uniformity has been brought in at the expense of the region rather than at the expense of the local municipality.

Speaking of the absenteeism of the member for Ottawa South, I am glad somebody interjected, because I would have missed that. He is not here again tonight. Since he became Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with the exception of being here for a few hours when the bill that created the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was introduced for second reading, I do not think he has been here.

That just shows members the kind of attitude he has towards the Legislature when legislation governing his ministry is being introduced. That does not in any way cast any doubt on the ability, the forthrightness, the integrity and everything else that the member for Wilson Heights has. I am sure there are people who would come forth and speak on his behalf at any time. But the fact is that the minister is not here. He should be known as the minister of absenteeism as far as the Legislature is concerned.

Back to the bill.

Mr. Bradley: Does this bill have anything to do with municipal government? If it does, I will speak on it.

Mr. Epp: Oh, it sure has. Just to answer my colleague the member for St. Catharines, who is a very able member of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, as you well recognize, it is taking a lot of powers away from the local municipalities and giving them to the regions, and I hope the member for Wilson Heights will try to give us some examples a little later on of where the reverse has taken place.

Getting back to the bill, I want the parliamentary assistant to try to explain what is happening in Ottawa with the way these school board districts are set up because, despite the fact that he indicated earlier that uniformity was being brought in and this was going to be exactly the same as it is in other regional municipalities in the province, it appears from the way this is drafted that uniformity is not being brought in but that it is fairly different from some of the other regional municipalities.

I have one other point. With respect to section 6, I notice that 60 days' notice must be given to the region by local municipalities if roads are closed. I presume they are talking here about being permanently closed, to the point where they can be permanently closed. I am wondering how this coincides with legislation as it affects the province. If the province wants to close a road, does it honour these regulations and give at least as much notice to the local municipality, be it a regional, local or area municipality, as it expects one of the municipalities to give to the other?

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but only brief in relation to the debate on Bill 179.

Mr. Bradley: I am glad the member did not say he was going to be short.

Mr. Chariton: I already am.

I suppose I will start out at the point where the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) started out and the comment of the parliamentary assistant regarding the continuing absence of the minister. In relation to this bill and the other municipal bills we are dealing with here tonight, the support of this party may very well hinge on the continuing absence of the minister.

This bill deals with a question which has been a vexing problem for a number of areas in the province. The member for Waterloo North touched on some of the problems a number of the smaller municipalities in the province have in their relationships within a regional structure. I think this bill reflects that.

Some of the sections of the bill deal with problems that were created by this government in the way in which it imposed regional government across the province. For example, sections 3 and 9 deal with the question of solid waste disposal. No lower-tier municipality within a region can designate a site for solid waste disposal; only a regional municipality can do that. That fact has caused and is causing some problems in a number of areas around the province. These two sections of the bill will impose that same condition on the regional municipalities of Durham and Halton. So, in fact, it is an extension of problems that have arisen elsewhere.

That has been a problem simply because, within a region made up of lower-tier municipalities, inevitably it is one of those lower-tier municipalities on which a solid waste disposal site is imposed. In Hamilton-Wentworth we had a situation some four years ago where, because the Upper Ottawa Street dump -- a dump we have discussed in this Legislature on a number of occasions -- was coming to the end of its life as a disposal site in that regional municipality, the region, which was charged with the sole responsibility of designating disposal sites, had to find a new location.

We understand fully that waste has to be dealt with, but it created a situation where the township in which the proposed new dump was to be located opposed the location of that dump site. Because of the regional legislation, the local municipality had virtually no power to stop the imposition of that new dump on the township of Glanbrook. That is just one of the continual examples of how local municipalities, local communities, are gradually losing control over their own destinies, the nature of their lifestyles and the kind of developments that will go on in their local areas. They are losing control of their ability to make their own local decisions about the kind of municipality, the kind of terrain, the kind of lifestyle they want to have.

The federal government, with the co-operation of the provincial government, along with the city of Hamilton, has been trying to impose expansion on a small airport in the township of Glanbrook. I am a member from Hamilton, but I admit the city of Hamilton has been a bully in the situation of expanding the airport in the township of Glanbrook. The same situation arose about the dump site and the municipality had no choice. The region imposed it.

The bulk of the garbage, both domestic from households and industrial from Hamilton's large industrial complexes, is now being dumped in the township of Glanbrook. That is because of these sections already being in force in the Hamilton-Wentworth act. Now they are going to turn around and impose these sections in two other regions of the province. This bill is the kind of bill that continues the escalation of that shift of power away from local communities and local municipalities. For those reasons, we will be opposing this bill.

9:20 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline some of the concerns I have regarding this legislation. Prior to doing that, I would really be remiss if I did not express my disapproval of the minister not being here to carry his bill.

You probably recall, Mr. Speaker, that I have mentioned that in the past. I would have hoped that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would have some respect -- not more respect, but some respect -- for this Legislature. If he had only a bit of respect, he would show up here once in a while, carry his bills and engage in debate with other members.

It is fine for him to think he is above all of us mortals as he demonstrated in this House today when he refused to surrender documents I asked him for the benefit of my constituents. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, you remember the conversation we had this afternoon when I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to provide Ontario Housing manuals so that I could better serve my constituents and perform my duties as a member of the select committee --

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, there was quite a

row, but let us get back to the bill.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, I recognize that, Mr. Speaker, but I want to outline to you my disapproval of the actions of the minister.

Regarding the bill, I think the minister should be aware through his parliamentary assistant that I personally would like to suggest to my colleagues -- and this is my personal view -- that because of the minister's continuing absence in this Legislature, in the future we should very seriously consider dividing on every single bill that is brought by that ministry to show opposition to the actions of that minister. He lacks any kind of respect for this great chamber, and that has to be pointed out as often as we can so that the people of Ottawa-Carleton and other areas are made aware of it.

This bill has a very important effect on the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. That is covered in part VI of that bill. As members know, Ottawa-Carleton area is represented in part by the member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If he is not concerned with this Legislature, I would hope that at least he would be concerned with the people of his constituency, or does he not care about them either?

I am sure he does not. I am also sure the people will remember the actions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Ottawa South, in the next election.

Getting to some of the things contained in this bill: The member for Hamilton Mountain has raised a concern which I share, and that has to do with the solid waste disposal sites. I can think of the effect that would have on the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. For a number of years I was on municipal council in Cumberland township. At that time we certainly would not have wanted -- and I am sure the residents of Cumberland township still would not want -- a solid waste disposal site to be forced upon us by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

I fear this could possibly be an effect of the enacting of this bill and I hope the parliamentary assistant can clarify that situation. If that is the case, I am personally not interested in that kind of thing going on at all.

Right now, the situation is that municipalities within a region, upon request by the region -- at least as I understand it in Ottawa-Carleton -- can decide whether or not they want the solid waste disposal site to be in their municipality. I still think that decision should be one that is made by the local municipality rather than by the region. If I am right in what I am saying, I would hope the minister will remove that section from the bill.

I am a little concerned, as well, with some of the things this bill does not cover. Section 21 is of particular concern because --

The Deputy Speaker: Wait a minute, can you

do that?

Mr. Boudria: Pardon me?

The Deputy Speaker: You are concerned about the sections of the bill that it does not cover?

Mr. Boudria: No. I said I am concerned about some of the things the bill does not cover. It should cover more things in section 21. Let me give an example.

In section 21 we are discussing school boundaries. While we are amending the school boundaries, it should be known to every single one of us that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), who is not here, of course, should have adopted the report on the governance of French-language elementary and secondary schools. If that had been done, there would have been the necessary amendments made under section 21 to reflect that.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you are sneaking this in.

Mr. Boudria: Pardon me?

The Deputy Speaker: You are talking about something that is not in the bill.

Mr. Boudria: No, I am not. I am talking about section 21 and amendments that should be different to the ones that are there. Section 21 is clearly there and affects the school boundaries in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will not deny that, nor, I hope, will the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

I think it should be pointed out that in my view the government has done its absolute best not to pass the necessary legislation in time for the elections this fall in order not to adopt the report on the governance of French-language elementary and secondary schools.

Had the government adopted that report, the amendments necessary could have been easily included in the school boundaries there to cover the situation I am now discussing. If the government had enough time to introduce this amendment, they obviously had enough time to introduce that other one as well. One more line in that bill would have ensured guaranteed representation for the francophones of this province.

What did the government do instead? That report was completed by the committee at the end of March and was given to the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the early days of April. The Premier sat on the report, or did whatever it was that he did with it, and tabled it in this House around May 15. He then asked the various school boards and interested parties in this province to reply to him, without specifying a final date for a reply.

Then he decided that not enough people had replied and, therefore, he could not make the necessary changes which should have been in this bill in time for the fall elections. If the rationale for this action by the government escapes you, Mr. Speaker, it totally dumbfounds the francophone population of this province.

It should be pointed out that we are now seeing all kinds of repercussions from the government's failure to act in this area. Need I remind the parliamentary assistant of what we are seeing in Iroquois Falls and in Mattawa in regard to the school problems they have there? All of those situations could have been corrected with the necessary amendments in this bill had the Premier (Mr. Davis) adopted the report on the governance of French-language elementary and secondary schools.

In general, I want to share the concerns expressed by the member for Waterloo North. Whenever streamlining or uniformity or anything else is adopted in relation to the powers between regional and local municipalities, it always favours the regions. I have yet to witness a bill discussing what the government is going to take away from the region and give to the local municipality. If it has introduced such legislation, I would like to have a copy of it to frame and display in a very prominent place to mark the one and only time that this government has not increased the powers of regional municipalities.

9:30 p.m.

It should be known to each and every one of us that regional municipalities are not all that popular across this province. The minister should know that, but of course, since he is never here, he probably does not listen and does not read Hansard either, and is not familiar with what opposition members or any other members have to say about regional municipalities. But I am sure his parliamentary assistant is well aware, and I hope he will inform the minister.

It is no small coincidence that in the past few years this government has not established any new regional municipalities. There has to be more than coincidence to that. Why is there not a regional municipality in the Windsor area, for instance?

Mr. Ruston: Get out of there.

Mr. Boudria: That is exactly the reason. The member says, "Get out of there." That is because the people do not want one, and the government has finally come to the realization that people do not want regional municipalities and have never wanted them.

The Deputy Speaker: You are in trouble now.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Is that in the bill?

Mr. Boudria: Certainly that is within the context of this bill. The minister is taking powers from the local municipalities and adding them to the regions' responsibilities. He cannot say that is not covered in this legislation.

Interjection.

Mr. Boudria: That is correct. I can see why the Minister of Revenue is embarrassed. He represents part of a regional municipality. It is not popular either, and the people there would want it dismantled, as we do as members of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I do not share the regret that the minister is not present. I always find that it does something very pleasant to this House. When he graces us with his absence, the tone of debate in here rises, people are friendlier and there is not that kind of dirty muck-around-on-the-floor animosity spread on both sides.

I am an advocate of the idea that the minister should grace us with his absence all the time. I think it would be just plain good advice to the Premier that he ought to take this minister and really make him absent, get him out of here altogether. It would do a lot towards relationships with opposition members, and it might even do something to enhance the reputation of the government among the municipalities as well. So I do not have any problem, and I leave the invitation open: Any time the minister wants to leave this place, I am grateful for it.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to oppose this legislation. I have to put forth an argument because traditionally this stuff rolls in here in the same form we have now and for some strange reason the members of the Legislature are expected not even to debate the matter but simply to accept these changes to regional municipalities throughout Ontario. The traditional argument is that there is no argument left. By the time it gets in here it has been through all of the regions, there have been consultations with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and at this point there is no debate left.

I am unhappy with the form of the bill itself. It makes it very difficult to go through a bill such as this one, which changes some 10 different acts all in one bill -- kind of an omnibus approach. There are some in here, quite frankly, that I think are fairly reasonable ways to proceed. There are also a couple I do not agree with. When you roll them all into one act, the changes or the principles that are suggested in this bill are in many cases totally unrelated to one another, and it poses a problem for us. That is to say, the government have put it all in one package on a take-it-or-leave-it basis: "You are playing my way or the high way." I am here to tell them to take the high way. It is as simple as that.

If they want to bring in amendments to various regional municipal governments around Ontario where the members of the Legislature are given an opportunity to examine one principle in one bill dealing with one municipality or one region, we would be happy to look at it on that basis. But the form that is used for regional amendments is one that prohibits us from doing that.

We are allowed to voice our concerns and our opinions about the different sections contained in this bill, but we are not given the opportunity to say, "The first proposal for change in here is a good one, and we support that one; but the next one we do not support and the one after that we do." How does one make the distinction there that we oppose it?

We are going to oppose this bill in principle. We want to encourage the government to try to find a mechanism, if it wants to continue to do omnibus bills of this nature, whereby it is possible for us to make those distinctions. In this bill, for example, I want to make the distinctions. The only way I can do that on second- reading debate is to oppose it. So we are going to do that.

I want to elaborate slightly on that. I think it is important that we recognize that for each occasion when an amendment is put forward to a regional municipality, there are arguments pro and con. It is not quite as cut and dried as the government might like us to believe. There are regional councils which propose changes in their legislation. They work their way through the process and find their way into a bill like this, and, quite frankly, the people in the municipality may not want them.

The purpose of the exercise is to provide to the regions a legislative response, which generally makes minor changes or provides for some uniformity in different regional governments across Ontario. I accept that, but I am saying there is a problem with packaging it in quite this way. On this particular occasion, we are going to respond by opposing the bill in principle.

I think among most people who live in an area of Ontario where there is a regional government, there is a growing concern, which has been stated on a number of occasions now, that the concept of regional government was just fine, but the practice of regional government in Ontario has led to some problems. In many areas, if one asks people on the streets, "What is your regional government doing these days? Is it working well or not?" they will probably respond by saying: "I don't exactly know what it is doing. All I know is my taxes have gone up and I cannot find out who is doing it to me this time."

Even though many of our regions have been in place and operational now for some period of time, there are still questions in the public's mind as to the real need for regional government. There are still discrepancies of some substantial order from one municipality within the region to another, and there are still different perspectives on it.

In my own area, in the region of Durham, there are regional councillors who will give a pretty good argument that the region has done something, has stabilized their municipality. It has, in some of their views, a positive response. Generally, though, in the lower-tier municipalities that were fairly well organized and rather sophisticated prior to regionalization, the argument from the regional councillors is, at best, zero -- that it has not really done anything for them.

In the city of Oshawa, for example, the most common comment one can pick up from a regional councillor there is that there has not really been a change pro or con for the citizens of Oshawa. In other areas within that region, one can probably muster an argument that there are some advantages to it, perhaps in terms of industrial development or in terms of provision of the hard services. People in smaller, rural municipalities generally have had access to services they might not have had before, or at least to a level of service.

The argument, and the irony, of course, is that many of them do not want it. Many of them are getting police service above and beyond what they ever thought was necessary, and they do not particularly want that service. I think that is the nub of the argument in general terms across every region that is mentioned in here. That conflict has yet to be resolved. I am not an advocate of expanding the regions, but I am a realist who wants to recognize that regional government has really fallen far short of its potential. This government itself recognizes that. It is a government that at one time in the early 1970s and through the mid-1970s was gung ho for regional government wall to wall, from one end of Ontario to the other.

As it implemented those regions -- and it did so in rather strange ways, I might add -- it found that what was once a sound political theory of organizing municipalities has some difficulties when one tries to put it into practice. So just the general reputation of regional government suffered some damage. I must say, in my view anyway, it is damage that it has not really recovered from yet and it may take some time to do so.

As we went through the principles that are enunciated in this bill, there were not a lot of heavy problems with them. I do not have any real problem with the first principle in here which provides for an interest accommodation rate on debenture sinking and retirement funds. That is a matter of administrative adjustment and I believe it is a reasonable way to proceed.

9:40 p.m.

When we get into the second principle that is in here, we see we just had that argument under the previous bill. I stated, I hope with some reasonable amount of detail, what my problems were with that concept. Yet I have the difficulty that, having argued and made up my mind one way that I am not happy with that process being used, I find it pops up again in this bill. The same argument applies. I just think this is the wrong time to be making this kind of adjustment. It is as simple as that.

I do not want to go into the long, involved argument we had before, but I did not like it in that bill and I do not like it in this bill. I think members have to be a little bit leery these days, because very often we see spillover effects from one piece of legislation to another. This is an example of the same thing appearing in a sideways form.

When we go through some of the arguments and some of the changes that are proposed here, we sometimes get into some difficulty. The next proposal is one that deserves a little bit of comment here because, at least in the compendium which is supplied to the opposition critics by the government, there are suggestions which I think are supportable.

The first one on which I want to make a few comments is the solid waste disposal provisions that are in here for two of the regions; one is my own regional municipality of Durham, and the other one is the regional municipality of Halton.

I think this kind of thing is supportable. Here there is an attempt to identify what all of us agree is a problem. The difficulty, of course, is it makes the decision that it will be the region that completes the provision of that service to the public. Again, it tries to get at some of the problems here.

I believe this section, for example, is a supportable concept, even though in my own area and in a number of other places around Ontario there are going to be some problems with this.

For example, one of the recommendations that will be implemented by this bill, is that the regional municipality will be able to prescribe truck routes for hauling waste to landfill sites. Area municipalities also will be given this power subject to approval of the region.

I suspect many members who have not had a chance to sit on a municipal council will say, "Well, somebody has got to decide." It seems to me there is a little sucking and blowing at work here in designating that responsibility to the region and then saying the region may give some of that back to the municipality.

Some of the most vehement fights I have ever seen on a regional council happened over precisely this kind of thing. On paper, it looks like a solution to a problem. In practice, this is where the arguments begin; it is not where they end. Where people on a regional council sit down and say, "We would like to run these trucks carrying waste up this street," people in the local municipality are not always happy to see those trucks rolling up their streets and so they say: "Listen, I do not want it here. Why don't you take it over here, to the next municipality?"

That is where the problems really come into play, and that is where the arguments are. The proposition that the region will resolve that difficulty is an idea we have to deal with. Obviously, somebody has to do that. I am not sure, for example, whether this represents the kind of consensus we may think it does at first blush. The argument is not quite that simple. Some of our municipalities have had longstanding traditional problems about the transportation of solid waste to disposal facilities. I think there will be some problems there.

In general, I express some support for those two amendments applying to those two regions, but I point out that, in my view, there will be some problems there.

The next amendment is the same kind of thing, because it says that in a number of regions the area municipalities collect the sewage via arterial pipes, the region receives it through trunk lines and transmits it to a sewage treatment plant, and they are not permitted to receive septic waste from private haulers. That poses a problem in some of the municipalities as to exactly what the private haulers do with those septic wastes.

There are some regions that want to split that responsibility. The proposed change deals with that problem of accepting the septic tank waste directly into the sewage treatment plant and would charge for the service. That, of course, is a matter people sometimes used to forget about, and we now see it on the front line. Whenever any level of government does anything, it now wants the right to charge for that service.

The next ones are the kinds of things that I suppose got us into this format. I do not think there are many of us here who really want to spend a whole lot of time on the road-closing procedure in Halton. I think all of us would say, "That is for the people in Halton to decide any time they want it put out." The next one deals with a correction to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act. Again, we are not going to spend a lot of time on that and probably do not want to.

But the next one is a good example of why this makes it a little awkward. One of the things I want to get on the record too is that the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) came to me in the spring and said there has been a longstanding debate in the Ottawa region about the Ottawa school board and how its representatives are chosen, about the boundaries of the wards and how this thing goes on.

A number of people approached me, trying to give me some of the background to this argument. The gist of their argument was that they wanted this amendment, which in their view was not exactly what they wanted but at least it was some movement on changing the act. They had fought for it for a long time and they wanted to get this particular chunk of the act through.

At that time I would have been prepared to take this portion of this bill, separate it out and say, "Okay, let us deal with that, because this is a matter that is of some concern to local people, and they had said they wanted these changes in place before this November's municipal election." Unfortunately, it was not possible to get all the other sections of this act together, to get comments from people in different regions and from people who have different interests. It was not possible to do that; so this is a good example of why I am protesting the process, so to speak. I am told that the changes proposed here are not exactly what people want, or at least the people who bothered to take the time to talk to me about it, but that they do represent a consensus, which is traditionally what we are looking for here.

I think there are some problems there, and I know the member for Ottawa Centre wanted to be here tonight for this debate, because he wanted to put on the record some of the concerns he has had for a long time. Unfortunately, to facilitate the business of the House we have changed the order of the bills to be dealt with tonight. We had expected the member for Ottawa Centre would have had the opportunity to speak in this debate but, unfortunately, because of the change of the ordering of the bills that is not possible. I did want to mention briefly that he has some concerns about this format and about some of the problems that are there.

It is not that we always will be able to get a good discussion going in this Legislature about how people are elected to school boards in Ottawa, but there is provision here for the local member to be in the Legislature when the debate occurs and to give a local viewpoint on it. Again, this is an example of how, if we were able to pluck this part out and deal with it separately, this section of this bill most likely could have been passed in the spring and could have been in place in time for the municipal election this November 8.

I have a little problem with the next section in here, because it talks about the elimination of unnecessary applications by area municipalities to the Ontario Municipal Board for apportionment of area municipality levies to meet required regional levies.

Again, it is perhaps not a major item, but it does pose a problem. Removing that little exercise, which is seen by many to be redundant and unnecessary, also removes at the same time the right of an area municipality to state its case. I am always reluctant to do that. This would be one of them where I would have a bit of a problem with it, and I would have appreciated the opportunity to separate it out, speak directly to that issue and not have to deal with it in a compendium bill.

Again, to look at the kind of comparisons that are in the principles expressed in this bill, the next section in here deals with a boundary between Cambridge and Woolwich. It simply makes a minor adjustment to the description of the boundary between the city of Cambridge and the township of Woolwich. The amendment has been requested by the city, the township and the regional municipality of Waterloo.

None of us is going to have a problem with that. In the first place I suspect that, although all members are vitally interested in the affairs of both the city of Cambridge and the township of Woolwich, I do not think we want to spend a whole lot of time arguing what will be the boundaries, particularly when one can assure oneself that the city, the township and the regional municipality have all hammered this thing out on their own. I have no problem with that kind of thing; the form is the only problem there.

9:50 p.m.

I am surprised, quite frankly, that there were not more members who took the opportunity to talk about some of the energy-from-waste concepts that are around. This one is from Waterloo and gives the regional municipality waste reclamation powers similar to those at present contained in section 67 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Similar amendments to the regions of Durham and Halton acts are included in the broader amendments proposed about their solid waste disposal provisions.

This amendment would permit the Waterloo region to extract products and energy from waste and to sell and distribute them as recycled materials, electricity, steam, gas, etc., and it goes on to explain a couple of other proposals. That is precisely the kind of thing I would like to be able to support.

It is a concept that many of us are very interested in, having been a little short on good examples of that kind of thing at work in Ontario over a lengthy period of time. The more the municipalities begin that process and show some interest, and the more this government begins to explore those alternative energy sources and takes them out of the realm of scientific theory and into hard, on-the-ground examples of how that can have an impact on energy savings and make substantial changes in the whole energy picture in Ontario, the more we on this side of the House, particularly in my own caucus, will be very pleased. We would like to see that.

My problem is not with the specific principles. I think my count was something like two for eight where I had some small problems. My problem, as I pointed out, is in the format of the bill itself, to accept the bill as a whole when I know there are principles that I have some difficulty with. I have some colleagues who, unfortunately, will not be able to participate in the debate and thus will miss their one chance in a lifetime to say what they have to say about that section of the bill.

It is unfortunate that we are opposing the bill on second reading, but I think the format of the bill does not give us much choice. I hope the minister is not here. I have expressed my opinion about the minister before. However, the parliamentary assistant seems to be an amiable sort and always tries to provide us with at least some version of information from time to time; or at least things which, at a blink of an eye, appear to be information. There is not a lot of meat there, but at least he tries.

I think it is worth his while to take a look at the way in which these bills are processed through the House. I have no problem with the way he sets this bill in process, as it goes through local municipalities, regions, consultations with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and all of that. All I am saying is that it would be worth while, and I thought it worth saying on this one occasion that we would oppose a bill because of it.

I think it would be worth while to find a technique whereby these bills can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, which I believe is often necessary, and still allow us the opportunity to take a look at very different proposals. In this Bill 149, there are some extremely different proposals. It deals with 10 municipalities and 10 different municipal acts; so a lot of things are rolled into one little ball.

All I am making a case for here is that I think an argument can be made, and I am trying to make it, that some technique should be found whereby members can say "aye" or "nay" to the different ideas that are expressed in these bills.

In general, I do not have any problem with an omnibus bill of this type. I think there are two or three changes which simply make corrections to wordings of different acts. I have no problem with that. Where it gets a little more substantive, it would do us all some good to find a technique of presenting such changes to the Legislature in a form that allows us to say "Yes" to some and "No" to others. That is the reason we oppose the bill on second reading.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address Bill 149, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities. I have talked before about these bills coming in on a package deal and covering four or five different regional municipalities under one amendment bill. I find it difficult to follow sometimes and perhaps even misleading. I think if one wanted to bring in an amendment -- for example, to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act -- one should bring in a separate bill, instead of covering it along with four or five others.

It says in the explanatory notes, "The following amendments relate to all regional municipalities with the exception of Niagara, Waterloo and York." Further down it refers to the Public Utilities Act. We have just passed a bill previously, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act, that would include Ontario Hydro and the municipal hydroelectric commissions. If we are going to be applying a lien against property under the Public Utilities Act, I suggest there is no need to have it under a regional act; it should apply under the Public Utilities Act.

I find that there may be difficulties in this area as they relate to persons receiving general welfare assistance. If we look at the economic conditions we are facing now, we will have more persons applying for welfare. What some land owners have brought to my attention is that they have difficulty now in collecting the rent because many of their tenants are receiving general welfare assistance. If a landlord says, "I am charging you so much rent and you have to pay for utilities yourself," but the tenant does not pay for the utilities, it means the landlord will be picking up that extra cost on a lien to the property.

This may cause some difficulty later on where many persons on lower incomes may not be able to rent property because the landlord is going to take a look at this bill and say: "I am going to be saddled with this cost; so I am going to increase the rent sufficiently to cover the loss of, say, a water bill." That is one area I am concerned about.

The other area of my concern relates to sections 3 and 9 regarding the regional municipalities of Durham and Halton. In taking a close look at the explanatory notes, I see that they say: "No private person or municipality outside the region may set up a solid waste disposal facility in the region without the consent of the regional council but a refusal to grant consent may be referred to the municipal board, whose decision is final."

I could accept that if it were to apply to all regional governments in the province and to other municipalities. The reason I draw attention to this is that we now have a solid waste disposal commission or board under the chairmanship of Dr. Chant. If the members have read that body's latest study on areas suitable for solid waste disposal, they will know that it can come into any municipality and pinpoint a particular area as an industrial solid waste site without any approval from or discussion with the local municipality.

I can see that there are some merits in the amendments as they relate to Halton and Durham, in that at least we have someone who says, "Wait a minute; we do have legislation here that applies and it says you cannot do this," and there is public input through the Ontario Municipal Board. It is a good piece of legislation, but it should apply not only to those municipalities defined in the bill but also to other municipalities. I think all municipalities should have the same rights to some areas of protection so that you do not have other boards or commissions coming in and saying: "This is where it is going to be."

Section (b) of the explanatory notes relating to sections 3 and 9 says: "The regional council may prescribe truck routes on regional roads for hauling waste to a facility and the council of an area municipality may also do so for its roads, subject to the consent of the regional council."

When the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act was introduced, the reason given as to why it had to come about was that many of the municipalities were not viable. The same reasoning applied to the formation of the county school boards; it was said that local municipalities did not have viable boards. By changing the boundaries of local municipalities under regional government, bringing townships into cities and towns, they became more viable units.

As I look at the intent of the amendments relating to the Ottawa-Carleton school board, what the government is saying is, "There is kind of a viable unit there; you can establish your own school boards within that boundary." It is hard to figure out the direction the government is taking. One minute it is pushing for regional government and the next minute it is trying to bring in smaller, viable units in regard to school boards.

I suggest that this section means local municipalities are losing more and more of their ability to administer their own affairs locally. They have to have the consent of the regional council. I do not think that should be in any bill.

10 p.m.

The note on section 17 of the bill reads: "The subsection added dispenses with the necessity of obtaining municipal board approval where an area municipality imposes a sewer mill rate to defray the regional sewer levy imposed on it, provided the rate applies only to the property that is situate within the area of the special benefit defined in the area municipality by the regional council." This refers to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

The point I want to bring to the attention of members is that this proposed amendment is one I cannot accept either. I think the public, the taxpayers, should have that right to an objection and it should be heard by an impartial body such as the Ontario Municipal Board.

I was on the select committee in 1970 that dealt with whether we should do away with the Ontario Municipal Board. The committee, under chairman John MacBeth, made a final report suggesting that the board had a key role to play in relation to the municipalities. The general public, the taxpayers, have some right to have their grievances heard. To remove that right of a taxpayer is not in the best interests of the municipality or the taxpayer.

If this applies to one municipality, next it will apply to the regional municipalities of Niagara, Wentworth or Hamilton. The public has no access to any recourse on local government decisions. They will not be entitled to their day in court before the Ontario Municipal Board. That is a rather important amendment that should be looked at very closely.

There was another section defining a water area. The same thing could apply there, or to charges for sewer disposal coverage. For example, in the town of Fort Erie, in 1965 there was a report done by the township of Bertie, before it was amalgamated through regional government into a large corporation, the town of Fort Erie. A sanitary sewer study was done of the whole community.

At that time it was going to cost the township about $4.5 million to have it completed by the year 1970, but when regional government came in in 1969, that was shelved. I do not know what priorities the region has established, but there are areas now that are fully developed, subdivisions have been completed and there is an area called Erie Beach, which is perhaps one of the oldest parts of the municipality, that sits between two areas serviced by sewers. It is only about four or five small streets, not more than two city blocks. For some unknown reason, they forgot to have the sewer services installed. Today they are having difficulty getting that area serviced and it is causing quite a health problem. They do have septic tanks.

If we accept the principle of some of these amendments to the regional bill, and hope they do not apply to the region of Niagara, that would mean those people would be charged for sewer services but would not receive the benefits, because they are still on septic tanks. They have to have those tanks cleaned out once a year -- in that area it might be twice a year, because the ground is saturated with effluent now -- and they are paying a double charge to dispose of that waste. Already they are charged for services they do not receive. They have to pay for the use of having the truck to take it away; so there is an extra cost there.

I suggest there are problems with this bill to which some consideration should have been given. Maybe the parliamentary assistant can tell me if these have been approved by local municipalities. Have they endorsed the proposals?

Interjection.

Mr. Haggerty: I do not know. It has never been brought to my attention in the Niagara region that local municipalities endorse such measures as these.

I know there have been difficulties with one of these amendments on municipal waste. I am talking about waste disposal where they had considered, for example, building one central waste disposal centre in the Niagara region. The cost to the outlying areas would be prohibitive today. The cost of trucking that waste material 35 to 60 miles to another site is --

The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary assistant interjected that is not in the act.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is not in the Niagara section of the act. That is only in the Durham and Halton section of the act.

Mr. Haggerty: I know. What I am saying is when the government brings in a bill like this with so many amendments to different bills, eventually it is tried out in one area and in the next stage there will be amendments back here next spring or later on in the fall saying, "We are going to apply it to other regional municipalities." I am referring to the difficulties some of them are having now, particularly in the Niagara region.

I suppose if I had my way I would be introducing a motion tonight to withdraw the Niagara regional bill because the cost to the taxpayers there is getting to be prohibitive. I mentioned the one area about providing the services for the town of Fort Erie as it relates to sewage disposal, putting in the proper trunk lines to service those people in that area.

The region cannot do it because it has not set its priorities, but it can spend $6 million on a new building in the city of Thorold. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) happens to represent that area. At one time it used to be part of the township of Thorold where he was reeve. If I look at the regional municipality and at the bill itself, I have often said he is the godfather of regional government in the Niagara region because he was one of the great proponents of regional government.

I have often considered the history of the county of Welland and my days there sitting as a member and seeing things taking place. I was curious and I objected to regional government at that time. I wanted a public debate on it but we never did receive it.

I know members have sent out briefs or newsletters to their constituents asking questions such as, "Are you in favour of building a new regional office facility, a new centre?" Ninety-odd per cent of them said, "We are opposed to it," but it still went on. I do not know what priorities they set, but I noted in my comments about the godfather of regional government, and sometimes I think the record should be set straight in this area, the member was great for proposing regional government in the area based upon good sound planning and not to destroy the agricultural atmosphere of any municipality.

It is interesting to note that in the end, the location of regional headquarters is on some good agricultural land in the former township of Thorold. We had a regional detention centre built there by the province and where did they locate that but in the township of Thorold. We had Niagara College. That was built in the Niagara region and was constructed in Thorold township right on choice agricultural land.

I could go on and on about the godfather of regional government and how things have turned around and played right into his hands.

Mr. Epp: Are you talking about the member for Welland-Thorold?

Mr. Haggerty: No, I would not. I am just talking about --

Mr. Ruston: Do you mean Mel was in favour of regional government?

Mr. Haggerty: No.

Mr. Breaugh: Was he the godfather of regional government?

Mr. Haggerty: He went to that great Socialist country, Sweden, came back and gave so much praise to the form of government and the regionalism that was taking place over there. I do not have to tell the members about the pitfalls there now. The same thing applies to the region. I thought I should put that on the record. It is too bad he was not here to defend himself on it, but I have often heard him stand up and speak about preservation of agricultural lands.

10:10 p.m.

History shows what did take place in the Niagara region. Look at the assessment he has gained from regional government because all the government institutions are built there: Brock University, Niagara College and the regional detention centre. There was a big subdivision being planned there that I think was in his day, Confederation Heights of all places, right up on top of the escarpment, a beautiful sight.

An hon. member: Does he own that?

Mr. Haggerty: No, he does not own that, but it is there.

When we got regional government, it ended up that in Erie riding we had nothing but pits and quarries. That is what we have, and good farm land has disappeared there too.

Mr. Epp: A lot of the pits.

Mr. Haggerty: An awful lot of pits. I suppose if I had my way I would bring in an amendment to disband or dissolve the regional government of Niagara. If I get an invitation to stand up there at the grand opening of this new $6-million regional centre to congratulate the regional council, I think I would have difficulty in saying I support such measures that put the area into further debt. The regional debt is nothing to be too proud of because it is getting to an area now where it is getting too expensive for it.

I can get into the subject of the cost of police protection and the shortfall of police protection in certain communities that have reduced forces since they went into regional government. It is a rather difficult thing to really accept in that area, and I suppose if there is ever a mandate taken to find out if people support regional government in the Niagara region it would certainly embarrass this government because it would go down. It is one way to put it to the test though. I do not have to tell them that, because they have only one or two members there now, and the one who just came in there, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) just got in by a squeaker.

Mr. Ruston: An overnight guest.

Mr. Haggerty: He could be an overnight guest, as the member says.

Regional government is not working that well in the region, and there are many persons there today who wish they could go back to the old boundaries of the county of Welland, the same as the present school boundaries. I suggest it is empire building that is costing the taxpayers too damned much to support today under restraint policies. If the member wants to bring something forward, he should bring in an amendment to disband the regional government of Niagara.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, there were some interesting points raised in the debate, and I will try to answer those which are relevant to the debate. There were some points, of course, which were interesting but really had nothing to do with the bill.

It is kind of amusing that some members who are here and, interestingly enough, some members who are not here, raised the fact that my minister is not participating in this debate this evening. I would point out to the members opposite that I do not know how their caucuses operate or how they operate. but we on this side of the House operate as a team. We operate together and we work together, and we have responsibilities.

The division of responsibility between myself and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is that I have assumed the responsibility of carrying legislation in the House.

From time to time, the members opposite complain about the parliamentary assistants, saying they do not do enough, but then when we do work, they complain on the other side. I think it is really just a little bit of political child's play to object to this sort of thing. When the members opposite have nothing else to talk about, they bring up this nonsense.

I do appreciate the confidence the members have shown in me to be able to carry the legislation, and I am quite pleased to co-operate with them, but I would indicate that we are doing this not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the minister, who was very much a part of the deliberations in bringing this legislation forward.

The member for Oshawa raised another important philosophical point about this being an omnibus bill. He said, "How can you have a process whereby you could vote for parts of some and against parts of some?" With respect, there are really no great matters of principle in these bills. There are, of course, things which members of the opposition parties can object to.

We have had this type of omnibus bill for many years. The practice has been, basically, that we pass them on second reading and they go to committee of the whole, where I have indicated this bill will go. At that time, any member of the Legislature can vote for a clause or against a clause and get on the record his objection to a bill. To bring in eight or nine different bills, all small ones, instead of the one omnibus bill would be more cumbersome for the House and would not advance the democratic process in any way.

The member for Waterloo North has asked about the philosophy of this bill and extended it to the philosophy of regional government. I would point out to him and the member for Erie that there is no thought of the government disbanding any regional government. There is no thought of the government bringing in any new regional governments.

The reason for the bill being in this form -- to the member for Waterloo North -- is that it has been a policy that we do not accept private bills from regions. Any regional legislation must be done as a public bill because the original legislation was all done in public bills, as distinguished from various municipality or private bills. That is why these bills come this way. If they were not regions, some of these matters could come in private bills.

Some clauses in regional acts are the same for all regions, the same as they are in the Municipal Act, and some are different. There is no philosophy of the government that says all regions must have similar acts. We do encourage each municipality, as its local option, to bring forward those requests for legislation which fit that municipality specifically.

There is no pressure from the government to say, "This piece of legislation is working well in region A; therefore, all of the regions should have it." Many of these things are brought in at the request of the municipality. This form of legislation allows for flexibility and differences between regions.

The member for Waterloo North also mentioned that the Ottawa school board is different from others. I am sorry if I did not explain this properly in my opening remarks. What I was trying to indicate to the House is that the process of setting up the wards for the Ottawa school board is the same as the process for setting upwards in other municipalities or other regions. That is, it can be at the initiation of the school board or at the initiation of electors and must be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

I did not in any way mean to indicate -- and if I did, I apologize -- that the actual division of wards is similar to that of other municipalities. It is a unique system in Ottawa, but the process of initiation and going to the OMB is the same as in other areas.

I was asked about road closings in Halton, where objection can be made by the local municipality. I was asked if this was the same for the province. I am sorry I cannot give the exact reference in legislation, but having consulted with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), who was here earlier, when the province does close a road it is the policy to discuss and inform the municipality. I am not sure exactly what the legislation would be. If someone really wants that answer, I could get it.

The member for Hamilton Mountain objected to the section on regional waste. I would point out to him this is only for the regions of Durham and Halton. I would point out also that the legislation is here at the request of those councils. Someone is going to say, "That was at the request of the regional councils, not the local councils." But I would point out again that the regional councils of both those municipalities are made up of local councillors and, therefore, it is really local councillors who requested this legislation. I am pleased to see that the member for Oshawa, as part of Durham region, thinks it is good legislation as far as his region is concerned.

I would point out that even if the member for Hamilton Mountain was objecting for other municipalities, the region can, in effect, choose a dump site. As with a number of situations, a dump site is not the most desirable thing to have in your backyard. If you gave every local municipality the veto power, everyone would say, "Sure, we need a dump site, but put it somewhere else." If we recognize that in the 1980s there has to be a place to dispose of waste, then there must be someone with the authority to make a decision.

Mr. Charlton: I was not objecting to the section. I was objecting to the lack of a dispute resolution mechanism. What we, in fact, have is a section which sets municipalities off.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the power and the decision-making process have been given to the regional municipality at the request of the elected representatives of that region, and I think that is the way it should be.

The member for Oshawa was discussing removing the requirement to go to the Ontario Municipal Board for certain area levies. With respect, he did not quite understand the purport of the act. Really, what it says is only for Ottawa region because it has special area levies for sewer and transit. What the act says is where the area levy has been made by the regional council on the municipality, the municipality can choose whether to have a general levy or an area levy.

10:20 p.m.

The decision of the local council does not then have to go back to the OMB. It is not transferring power from the local council to the region. It is saying the local council can make a decision and that decision does not have to go to the OMB. It really is not a transfer of power up; it is giving a local municipality more autonomy.

I am aware there may be some particular sections of this act some members would object to. I indicated in my opening remarks I would request this go to committee of the whole House because I have several minor amendments which I have distributed.

At that time, of course, members of the Legislature can discuss any specific section. They may have amendments. If they wish to vote as a group or as individuals against any sections, I would say with respect that is the time to do so. Because there is really no great matter of principle in any of the sections, I would respectfully request that the members allow this bill to have second reading.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the parliamentary assistant accidentally omitted the example I asked him to provide for the House whereby he could give us at least one example where the devolution of power went from regional to local municipalities. Since we have all kinds of examples where it went from local to regional, I asked him to provide us with at least one example of where it went the other way. I am sure it was overlooked. I am sure he has all kinds of examples there for us. I just wonder if he would provide some obvious examples for us.

Mr. Rotenberg: I had it in my notes and I missed it. I do not have examples at the moment, but thanks to my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), one very interesting example of course is the recent bill on the Toronto Islands which transferred power from Metro to the city of Toronto.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, in deference to you and so forth, Metro is not part of this bill and I do not think that is a very good example. It is not appropriate at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This will be going to committee of the whole House and there will be time then.

Mr. Epp: Oh, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 149. All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this is another omnibus bill and makes a number of amendments to the Municipal Act. I would say, as I did on the previous one, that I will be referring this also to committee of the whole House because I have an amendment. Probably when we get into clause by clause we can deal with any specific objections.

Basically it makes many amendments to the Municipal Act, including the removal of the reference of elector assent to money bylaws. The bill removes the minimum population requirements for the issuance of various types of debentures that provide for payments by the province to replace the municipal and school taxes currently paid by nonprofit hospital service corporations.

The bill also fulfils a commitment made by this government to enable municipalities to operate in French as well as in English. In addition, it makes many minor adjustments and will delete many archaic provisions contained in the Municipal Act.

Without going into the details of each clause, I would recommend the bill to the House for second reading and would be pleased to answer any questions the members have on the individual sections.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill. It has a number of amendments which I think are very important and which obviously have not been touched on at any length by the parliamentary assistant.

The first is that when a municipality no longer exists, it has to notify the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). The Minister of Health, of course, is very busy with his leadership campaign and no longer wants to have these communications, so they have taken this out of the bill and he does not have to be notified any more when that does occur. That is going to be stricken from some of the procedures that currently have to be followed.

The other important thing is the fact that mayors can no longer call out posses. For years now, the mayors have guarded that as a very important right. They have been able to get all the men above the age of 15 out and --

Mr. Conway : No more posses?

Mr. Epp: No more posses. It says here, " ... the power of the county; an assemblage of the able-bodied male inhabitants above the age of 15 of a county, except peers and clergymen." I am not sure whether anyone here would fall into the category of a peer. There are some who probably would very much like to and there may even be one or two who would eagerly be in the category of clergyman.

Mr. Conway : First this government attacks privies, and now posses. Is nothing sacred?

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Epp: What is this world coming to, Mr. Speaker? All the peers of this House could not be called out by their honourable mayors, the lord mayors from their municipalities. It says: "...above the age of 15 except peers and clergymen. The sheriff of the county may summon the posse comitatus to defend the county against the enemies of the crown, or to keep the peace, or to pursue felons, or to enforce the royal writ. Persons failing to obey the summons are liable to fine and imprisonment." Not just a fine or not just imprisonment, but a fine and imprisonment.

"The posse fell into disuse as a result of the establishment of the police forces during the last century." I guess the government has just discovered that we have police forces. Despite the fact that they have this big differential between the money they give to local municipalities on a per capita basis for police forces and the greater amount they give to regional municipalities, they have discovered only now that amendments should be made and this should be stricken from the current usage. "The power to call up a posse remained in law until the repeal of the Sheriffs Act."

I am glad to see mayors no longer act on this piece of legislation. I am sure that my friend over there, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), the honourable House leader, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is here much more often than the current minister, would not endorse having a posse called out for an insurrection or whatever it was. Anyway, that is going to be amended and I am certainly glad to see that the government is acting in an enlightened way.

The other important thing in this bill is the fact that there are proposals being made that municipalities may conduct their meetings in both English and French. I presume this will mean they are going to be able to have simultaneous translation. I would think that giving this particular permission to municipalities will also mean that the Ontario government will soon be introducing simultaneous translation in this House so those people who want to speak in French may do so and people who want to listen in French can have that simultaneous translation. Certainly, this particular provision has been given to municipalities and I am sure it is a trial balloon for the introduction of it to the Legislature. Is that correct?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Epp: That is not correct? In other words, simultaneous translation is not going to be introduced? Is the member speaking on behalf of the government?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Where does it say anything in there about simultaneous translation? Read it out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: I am saying that is a facility that can be there. Obviously that is a possibility that could be there. The Minister of Revenue says that is not inherent in the legislation. In other words, if municipalities want to have simultaneous translation, they cannot have it. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I did not say that at all. You are the only one saying it is there. Read it out.

Mr. Epp: I am just asking. We notice that this act goes one step further. It provides that municipalities in their regular daily function may communicate with the public in some other language.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow we will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. We will also deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services on Monday, October 25.

On Tuesday, October 26, we will deal with legislation, second readings and committee of the whole House as required on Bills 174, 150, 145, 146, 131, 132, 177, 176 and 139. On Wednesday, October 27, the general government, justice and resources development committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, October 28, in the afternoon it will be private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), and in the evening we will have debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs dealing with agencies, boards and commissions; then, if time permits, debate on the motion for the adoption of the recommendations contained in the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

On Friday, October 29, we will consider the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet.

The House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

October 21, 1982