Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to ask the House to welcome a group of grade 7 students from Jesse Ketchum school who are here this afternoon with their teacher, Mrs. Sawchuk.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to welcome also a group of grade 7 and 8 students from St. Noel Chabanel school in Yorkview, with their teacher, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ROYAL VISIT

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, as you and the hon. members of this House are no doubt aware, within the hour Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, will be arriving at Toronto International Airport for the start of a six-day visit to Toronto. Ontario’s official welcome this afternoon is being extended by the Premier, the Hon. William Davis, and Mrs. Davis. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members present would like to join me in extending a hearty welcome to Her Majesty, coupled with our hopes for a happy and memorable visit.

ONTARIO COMMISSION ON THE LEGISLATURE

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a further statement. I should like to advise the House today of the government’s decision with regard to the second report of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

The government accepts the majority of the commission’s recommendations and in particular welcomes those recommendations which relate to the status of your high office and that of the Clerk of the Legislature. A few recommendations, primarily those relating to the library, are to be referred to the proposed Board of Internal Economy for further review before a final decision is made.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, the government fully accepts the principle of additional support for the members of the Legislature.

The government also accepts the recommendation that you should have control over the preparation of the estimates relating to legislative expenditures and that these should be tabled by you in the House.

Accepted also is the recommendation of additional administrative support in the Speaker’s and Clerk’s offices. It is the expectation that every effort will be made to keep administrative costs to a minimum and to utilize services which can be provided by the Ministry of Government Services.

The government has also accepted in the main recommendations with regard to additional secretarial support for members of the Legislature, including support for the offices of the leaders of the two opposition parties. Because the partisan nature of caucus activity would make it difficult to transfer staff from one caucus to another, should there be a shift in the respective party standings, it has not accepted the notion that these secretarial positions should come under the control of the Speaker.

Notwithstanding this, the government has accepted the principle that a reasonable number of staff should he provided at public expense to each political party caucus.

The commission has made recommendations as to the number of staff and the general level of expenditure, and the government is persuaded by its arguments. It is also persuaded that the salaries, fringe benefits and general terms and conditions of service should reflect equivalent job classifications in the public service.

In order that each caucus can maintain its close and continuing relationship with its staff, the government has decided that each caucus should be allocated a fixed amount of money from the Speaker’s vote each year for secretarial staff support, based on a combination of its approved maximum staff level and the comparable public service pay and fringe benefit schedule.

The cost of any supplementary salaries, fringe benefits, or enhanced terms and conditions of employment negotiated by caucus employees should, of course, be borne by the particular party itself and not by the public. As these employees are not Crown employees, they would not be eligible to contribute to the public service superannuation fund.

Mr. Speaker, the government has accepted the view that parts of this building should be placed under the control of the Speaker and is prepared to designate these. While the library itself will continue to be part of the Ministry of Government Services, at least for the time being, the recommendation to transfer it to the Speaker has been referred to the Board of Internal Economy for further review. In the meantime, close consultation will be maintained with the members so that their wishes with regard to library hours and similar matters will be accommodated.

It has further been decided that overall security in this building should continue to be the responsibility of the government, but that for those parts of the building which are considered legislative, the guidelines for the standards of security and the authority shall come from the Speaker. The Sergeant at Arms will, of course, still be responsible for discipline in the House.

Also accepted is the recommendation to establish a fees office with the right to issue cheques.

The matters which will be referred to the Board of Internal Economy include the recommendations relating to the library and the public support of administrative aides to the House leaders of the two opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker, the commission’s recommendations complement a number of new and important concepts already introduced into Ontario’s public administration, not the least of which is the further segregation of those expenditures which relate exclusively to the operation of the Legislature. Prior to the fiscal year 1973-1974, these costs have been, by and large, subsumed in ministerial estimates.

Now they will be available for public examination. Unfortunately, this year’s legislative estimates do not reflect any of the government’s decisions being announced today. Adjustments to these estimates, however, might take the form of supplementary estimates which the Speaker may wish to table later this year.

The commission has proposed that the Provincial Auditor conduct a post-audit of all financial operations of the Legislature in a manner similar to his audit of government ministries. The government concurs with this recommendation.

These then, Mr. Speaker, are the main matters with which I wish to deal. The effective date for the financial aspects of these decisions is April 1, 1974. Implementation of the recommendations will start immediately and we are hopeful that most of the changes can be made within a period of the next four months.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne we indicated our intention to introduce a legislative programme ensuring that family law in Ontario reflects today’s social and economic realities and, in particular, to bring forward legislation clarifying the legal rights of married persons. On March 11, when I subsequently presented to this House three reports of the Ontario Law Reform Commission dealing with family law, I pointed out that most of the proposed reforms were interrelated and should not be treated in isolation.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, family law provides rules to govern the relations of men, women and children of differing cultures, educational and religious backgrounds and levels of expectation. As a result, it is essential that the process of developing a new body of law to govern family relations seek to achieve consensus. To this end, my ministry has been attempting to lay the groundwork for public understanding of the issues in full as a basis upon which consensus may eventually be reached. During the past month, for example, I have held public meetings to discuss the family property law proposals of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in Brockville, Hamilton, Windsor, London, St. Catharines and Thunder Bay, and tonight a further meeting will be held in Sault Ste. Marie.

All areas of family law, however, are not as controversial as those concerning ownership of property. It is clear there are a number of reforms which could be introduced into our law at this time that would reflect the social realities with which we all live and would represent a sensible step forward in rationalizing and clarifying the legal rights of married persons. It is my pleasure to introduce later on in our session this afternoon just such a bill, the family law reform bill, which I truly believe reflects the consensus within our society to make more equitable the legal rights of married persons. Because the issue of public participation is so fundamental to the process of developing the law related to the family, it is my intention to give this bill first reading now and to proceed with it later on in the session when response and considered comments have been received.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, this bill incorporates many of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission’s report on family law and specifically provides for the legal recognition of the individual rights of husbands and wives during a marriage. Marriage, a dominant institution within our society, must enhance the stature and dignity of each of the partners. This bill then is designed to create a co-equal status for married men and women and, among its other provisions, includes a first legislative step to attempt to correct the anomaly in the law disclosed by the recent case in the Supreme Court of Canada of Murdoch vs Murdoch.

Section 1, subsection 1, establishes the separate legal personalities of each spouse. It is a symbolic step of considerable significance and follows the recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report on family law, part IV, that the doctrine of the unity of legal personality be abolished.

Section 1(2) grants full legal capacity to married persons. None of the legal incapacities presently existing secures any recognizable individual, public or social interest today, while at the same time they reflect a patronizing attitude toward married women that is totally at variance with our present belief that wives are individuals and should not be treated in law as satellites of their husbands.

Section 1, subsection 3, provides some illustrations of the intended effects of subsections 1 and 2. It is not intended to be exhaustive. Clause (a) deals with interspousal torts. At present, a husband may not sue his wife in tort, and a wife may sue her husband in tort only for the protection of her property but not for injuries to her person. The Ontario Law Reform Commission in its report on family law, part I, recommended extending the protection of the law of tort to both spouses in all respects as if they were not married. Clause (a) implements this recommendation.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Even if they are riding in the same automobile?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, we are coming to that. Of course they are doing that now.

Clause (b) abolishes the rule that a married woman may not act as guardian ad litem or next friend for an infant in a law suit. While this rule has been changed by statute in Ontario in several particular areas, as for example, adoption and affiliation proceedings, it has not been generally abolished. It has been abolished in England, and the

Ontario Law Reform Commission, in its report on family law, part IV, recommended its abolition here.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Courageous stuff in here.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Clause (c) deals with the controversial case of Murdoch vs Murdoch. In that case, Mrs. Murdoch sought a declaration from the court that her considerable contribution to the ranching business owned by her husband had given rise to a constructive trust in her favour. The courts, because she was the spouse of the owner rather than a third party, held that she was not entitled to an interest in the business. Clause (c) is intended to treat a person, such as Mrs. Murdoch, in the same way as it would treat a third party who contributed money or money’s worth to a business.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That is inadequate.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is inadequate.

Mr. Renwick: Quite inadequate.

Mr. Cassidy: That is just shocking. This government is still 20 years behind.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the member for Ottawa Centre wouldn’t mind just listening to the statement, he’ll find why we can’t go any further in this particular matter.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, because of the Conservative Party’s attitude toward women, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And it may be just beyond the member’s comprehension; but stick with the statement and I’ll explain this to him.

This clause confers no positive right to a share in a farm or business owned by the one spouse. It merely prevents the characterization of “husband” or “wife” from defeating a right that would exist were the parties not married. It is my belief that the question of positive rights to share family property, and the question of the matrimonial home, should be dealt with in legislation specifically addressed to it and not in a general family law reform statute.

Mr. Renwick: Two entirely different questions.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Right.

Mr. Renwick: That is exactly right and --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: The minister should be dealing with them right now --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- and not at some late date.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member can debate that at second reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: As usual, the minister is way behind.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: We are fed up with the gradualism of this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order please! Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And how can the member for Riverdale say that with a serious look on his face?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well, why is the minister reading this out?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Because clause (d) does away with the resumption of resulting trusts.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister bring in another statute?

Hon. Mr. Welch: At present, where a wife puts property in her husband’s name, there is a presumption that she is giving it to him to hold in trust for her. However, where a husband puts property in his wife’s name, he is presumed to make a gift or “advancement” to her.

An hon. member: It’s illegal, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This clause says that a trust will no longer be presumed in favour of a married woman when she transfers property to her husband. Clause (d) provides a common rule that where the legal title of property is in the name of the husband or wife, or both jointly, the beneficial interest shall be deemed to accompany the legal title, in the absence of proof of a contrary intention.

It should be noted that clause (d) does not create property rights or prevent spouses from giving property to each other in trust. Rather, it is concerned with the burden of proof in property- disputes.

Clause (e) deals with tenancies by the entireties. This form of tenancy was apparently done away with by implication in the Married Women’s Property Act, and specifically by section 13(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, but was resurrected in 1958 in an Ontario decision. The Ontario Law Reform Commission recommended in its report on family law, part IV, that this archaic form of tenancy -- based upon the unity of legal personalities -- be done away with.

An hon. member: They did it again.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The other effect of clause (e) is to change the rule in section 13(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, so that when land is conveyed to husband and wife without specifying the form of tenancy, the spouses will take title as joint tenants, not as tenants in common.

Section 1(4) tells the courts and the public that the purpose of this section, taken as a whole, is to treat spouses of both sexes in the same way with respect to all archaic or arbitrary common law doctrines affecting married persons, and not just those listed for illustrative purposes in subsection 3.

Mr. Lewis: Better be careful; it is pretty revolutionary stuff.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It should be noted that there is another major incapacity of married women which is done away with by section 1, but which is not thought necessary to set out.

Under the present law, a married woman cannot render herself personally liable for damages arising out of a breach of contract, but rather her liability is limited to the value of her “separate property.”

While a married man’s capacity to incur contractual liability is unlimited, a married woman’s capacity to be liable on a contract is limited to the value of the property which she owns.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission recommended giving married women the same capacity to incur contractual liability as other adults in its report on family law, part IV, and this is now covered by section 1 of this bill.

Mr. Renwick: The minister just drowns people with his legislation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 2 of the bill provides for three exceptions to the rules set out in section 1.

Mr. Lewis: It’s called “the Margaret Birch clause.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: The special rule permitting --

Mr. Renwick: Just what the minister did when she was taking away the rides home in a taxicab after midnight. It just threatens people.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- restraint on alienation of the property of a married woman is abolished by section 1, and section 2(1) preserves the rule with respect to agreements previously entered into.

Subsection 2 preserves the rule that the domicile of the husband is the domicile of the marriage. While at some future date it may be desirable to change this rule, it is imperative that it be retained until the ramifications of its alteration can be carefully analysed.

Mr. Renwick: That is another stock rule that the minister hasn’t got the guts to deal with.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Subsection 3 preserves the right of a wife to pledge her husband’s credit for necessaries.

Sections 3 and 4 enable actions for prenatal injuries and suits between parent and child to be brought, as recommended by part I of the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report on family law dealing with torts.

There is almost no case law in this province, or indeed in Canada, on parent-child law suits. Sections 3 and 4 clarify the law in favour of recovery for pre-natal injuries.

Section 5 repeals section 13(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. This is necessary to implement section (1)(3)(e) of this bill which provides that where a husband and wife hold property in both names, it is as joint tenants unless otherwise specified.

Section 6 -- and I make reference to this now because the hon. member for Downsview raised this question -- section 6 repeals section 214(b)(1) of the Insurance Act, under which the insurer is exempted from liability resulting from the bodily injury or death of a passenger who is a spouse or a child of the insured. This provision is based on the common-law principle which precludes recovery for interfamilial torts. Since this bill allows for suits between spouses and also between parents and children, and it follows that insurance protection against this new risk should be available to Ontario drivers and that section 214(b)(1) should be repealed. I am advised that the superintendent of insurance has already been consulted on this matter and has assured us that this change will not result in any higher insurance premiums.

Mr. Renwick: I wouldn’t count on it. I need some better assurance than that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Section 7 repeals most of the Married Women’s Property Act. This bill replaces substantive provisions of the Married Women’s Property Act either directly or by necessary implication. Except for section 12 of the Married Women’s Property Act, which provides a summary procedure for settling disputes between spouses respecting title to or possession of property, the remainder of that Act becomes obsolete or indeed redundant.

Mr. Speaker, in bringing this bill before the House today, I am mindful of my obligation to continue our detailed consultations with the public and with this House, and trust that this bill will serve to facilitate discussions of the fundamental issues with which we are all concerned.

Mr. Renwick: This bill won’t discuss any fundamental issues at all.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): It means a delay.

Mr. Lewis: The government hasn’t begun to deal with fundamental issues.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), I will today be introducing amendments to the Condominium Act.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): About time!

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the members are aware, amending legislation was proposed in the House last year, and the minister, after lengthy consultation with the administration of justice committee of this Legislature, and indeed as a result of a large number of submissions made, agreed to reintroduce the legislation, taking into consideration the advice of the hon. members.

With the introduction of this bill today, it is the hope of the minister that further scrutiny of these proposals will take place during the summer recess and that the amending legislation will proceed through committee and the House this fall.

Because the ministry does not intend to proceed immediately with the legislation, I will not outline the proposals in detail, other than to indicate that this is a major attempt to deal with existing problems in condominiums and that studies in this area are continuing. Background information on the amendments is available, of course, from the ministry.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s about time.

ACUPUNCTURE

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, over the past year or so, great public interest has been expressed in the benefits attributed to acupuncture. During this period there has also been a proliferation of unlicensed and unsupervised acupuncture clinics.

In response to this trend, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, under the authority given it by the Medical Act, declared on April 2, 1973, that “acupuncture is a medical treatment.” Today, in a companion statement, which I will table for the Legislature, the college has designated acupuncture as a medical act and has taken steps to control its practice.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this action of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I now wish to inform the House of steps the Ministry of Health has taken in this respect and to give the Legislature an indication of other matters concerning acupuncture that the ministry will be discussing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. By this means, the people of this province can be assured that only qualified individuals will be permitted to practise acupuncture in Ontario.

I should emphasize that while many medical authorities in Canada believe acupuncture has proved to have considerable value as an analgesic and in anaesthesia, further investigation is required to assess its value in the treatment of disease.

My prime concern is the possibility that acupuncture might be used before expert medical diagnosis has been obtained. Without such diagnosis, proper medical care could be delayed and serious consequences to the individual might result.

Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, there remains some question within the medical profession as to the proper role of acupuncture. For that reason, my ministry is taking progressive steps to support the clinical investigation of acupuncture at the health science centres in the province.

Today we are announcing three research grants to assist in evaluating and establishing the role of acupuncture in the delivery of health care. These grants will provide studies to explore the correlations between the nervous system and the relief of pain when acupuncture is used; to determine whether acupuncture is useful in the modification of pain due to chronic arthritis and similar illnesses; and to determine under controlled conditions why some patients experience relief of pain while others do not.

It is my intention to ensure that my ministry will continue supporting such clinical investigations, so we can determine when and for what purposes acupuncture is appropriate. My ministry will also be discussing with the College of Physicians and Surgeons the procedures the college intends to introduce to qualify acupuncture practitioners and to control their practice.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, until the therapeutic values of acupuncture have been conclusively established, the government does not intend to include services for acupuncture among those considered as insured benefits under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. I might also say, in closing, that the Ontario Council of Health has recently given me a paper on acupuncture which will be published.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

DECREASE IN LOAN APPROVALS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to address a question to the Minister of Housing. Has he examined the figures for the period January to May, 1974, made available from Central Mortgage and Housing, which indicate that loan approvals for new housing units for all programmes show a decrease to 10,282 units from 22,284 units for the same period in 1973, a drop of over 12,000 units in that one-year span? Has the minister examined the statistics? How does he propose to make up for the loss of these units, and has he undertaken any further discussions with CMHC to examine what factors are inhibiting the loan programme and what we can do about it here?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I haven’t seen the figures. From the speed with which they seem to reach the hon. Leader of the Opposition, perhaps he would do me the courtesy of sending me a copy so that I can see them before my staff brings them to my attention. My ministry is in constant contact with CMHC, but we have not discussed the housing-start situation. CMHC has not been kept fully informed -- and I must admit to some degree of blame for that -- on the progress of the housing action programme. I will certainly try to rectify that over the next few days.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the figures for a month ago indicated the beginning of a precipitous drop in CMHC units for the province, did the minister at that time consult with the federal officials to see just what was causing the drop and how our programmes could at least compensate for it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago as I recall, there was an insignificant change, although it may be interpreted as a trend. We certainly have not drawn any trend lines to indicate --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): That was the beginning of the end.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- whether it was the beginning of a trend or not. We have sent to CMHC the nature of our programmes as they were tabled in the House and they have had an opportunity to examine them. We understand there had been some roadblocks at the CMHC level on non-profit housing projects which we are trying to get under way and which CMHC is questioning. We have no way of determining the reasons for that. We would certainly be prepared at any time to speak to Mr. Teron or anyone in CMHC about their programmes and ours.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary? To what extent do these CMHC mortgages reflect in the 12,000 units for the OHAP programme or are they confined exclusively within the totally private sector?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The only CMHC mortgages which might possibly be involved in 12,000 OHAP units would be those sold under federal AHOP, the assisted home ownership programme. It is our understanding that ceilings which have been put on that programme by the federal government make it inoperative even in housing action areas. We have proposed to CMHC that we discuss and pursue the possibility of a merger between the AHOP and HOME programmes to determine whether or not we can double our production between us. At the present time, AHOP is beginning to work very slowly in urban areas, but for the most part it simply isn’t working.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is not concerned that these figures are showing a trend toward the fulfilment of the predictions that have been made by independent housing authorities in the private sector in the Toronto area, that this year in Ontario instead of the 110,000 starts that were predicted we are heading for something like 70,000 to 75,000 starts, in spite of a new minister and all of these OHAP, and AHOP programmes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to accept that kind of a Pollyannaish approach to this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Pollyannaish?

Mr. Cassidy: It isn’t so Pollyannaish, as the minister should know.

Mr. Lewis: It will be 90,000 to 100,000, but it won’t be 100,000 to 110,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Without our intervention it might have been between 90,000 and 100,000, as the leader of the New Democratic Party says so. I’m more inclined to accept that as an accurate assessment of what would have happened without our intervention.

As I mentioned this last week, we’re still waiting for firm agreements from municipalities to determine whether or not they will be coming into the housing action programme. If they do, we have no doubt whatsoever that we will be in the 100,000-to- 110,000 category that we forecast about a month ago.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister explain to me how it works out arithmetically, even with all the increases fulfilled under OHAP? As I understand it, the totals this year would range up to but not beyond 110,000 units. It is now shown that the private sector has already dropped some 12,000 units in the first five months of 1974. So what will he do in the public sector to intervene even more dramatically to create yet further houses beyond the fairly pathetic OHAP programme, which will compensate for the difference that will put us back lower than we were last year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have said repeatedly that while we would like to see housing starts maintained at their previous record high levels, we feel that far more important than maintaining volume of housing is to change the mix of prices in the housing market. We’re devoting most of our efforts to that end, rather than maintaining volume.

Mr. Lewis: His ministry is not doing that.

Mr. Cassidy: It is not doing that. There are 4,000 units for people earning less than $15,000.

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the policy secretary for Justice.

Mr. Singer: Try the Attorney General. He doesn’t recognize that title.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the secretary could inform the House when the government intends to act to establish uniform store hours? It seems to me it was a year ago when we were treated to a statement from the government --

Mr. Singer: That’s not policy. That’s Solicitor General.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that there was going to be a rather elaborate programme in this regard. When are we going to have a bill introduced, at least, which will move to avoid the confusion that is resulting from the attempts of municipalities such as Etobicoke to bring some order into this situation?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): This Friday.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, we hope to have something for the House this fall.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister indicate what the holdup has been, since his colleague, the Solicitor General, has moved throughout the province discussing this with everyone who was concerned many months ago?

Mr. Singer: And there was a green paper.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Was there no purpose to that other than to postpone the decision?

Mr. Cassidy: The provincial secretary didn’t give the job to the Solicitor General. That is the reason.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, one of the great advantages of full public discussion such as that is the fact that here is a tremendous response, and I think the people who do respond and share their views are entitled to be satisfied that those particular opinions and views are studied. All of this material has been collated, and the matter is presently before our committee. We’re hopeful to complete our work and have something before the House this fall.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister doesn’t believe that. Look at the way the government runs this place.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since many consumers as well as retailers in municipalities are deeply concerned, doesn’t the minister think that it is his responsibility to see that the government responds to all of the information that was delivered to his colleague many months ago? Are we going to have a blue paper following the green paper? Why doesn’t he act on it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there were three questions: Don’t I think we should respond? Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s the delay?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is that we hope we will have something before the House this fall.

Mr. Singer: In the fullness of time.

ACTIVITIES OF WESTERN GUARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he is aware of the complaints that have been expressed by Oxfam at the delay of any police action following the interruption of their meeting at the University of Toronto on April 7 when white- power Western Guard bullies came into that meeting and there was both physical and property injury. Is he aware that the Oxfam people are still concerned that there has been no action, even though some of these people are evidently identified on photo- graphs and have since been in the public eye, down at CITY-TV and at other white-power Western Guard activities?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as far as the incident is concerned, the hon. member knows there was no warning of any kind when the incident took place at the University of Toronto.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What did the minister expect, a written invitation?

Mr. Lewis: They’re pathological. They don’t give warnings.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The police were called, but unfortunately the people who caused the trouble down there had left the campus by the time the police had arrived. As far as the laying of any charges is concerned, I’m not aware that this has been contemplated by the Toronto police. I would be happy to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would he also find out if some of these people have been identified by photograph; if it was the same mob which moved in on the Sikh temple and which has been responsible for these serious disturbances in various parts of the Metropolitan area?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware that any photographs were taken at the incident at the University of Toronto. I’m not aware that there are any photographs from which comparisons can be made.

As far as the second incident is concerned, that investigation is carrying on and there are photographs. There is a possibility of charges being laid from that incident.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General prepared to extend the jurisdiction of the police of Metropolitan Toronto to the campus of the University of Toronto in order that this kind of incident will not be repeated? Is the minister concerned about the intrusion of this same group on CITY-TV quite recently in one of its public affairs programmes?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the latter part of the hon. member’s question is yes.

Mr. Deans: What is the extent of the minister’s concern?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as the police attending on the campus is concerned, as the hon. member knows this is a rather delicate situation. There are various student organizations which resent the intrusion of the municipal police on the campus when there are certain problems on the campus.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hope they don’t welcome the Western Guard.

Mr. Singer: Surely they have a right to go.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They have a right to go.

There have been organizations, certainly, in the past -- for example, when there was the discussion about the Robarts library and when some students took possession of the science building a few years ago, the police were called. That ended in a giant rally in one of the auditoriums, protesting the police action. I don’t know whether or not there should be better liaison, better communication. Certainly, when the situation warrants it, I see no objection to the municipal police being able to move in; the campus shouldn’t be considered isolated from that point of view in any way, shape or form.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Further to that matter, will the minister be prepared to make some statement which will recognize that this South American principle of sanctuary and the use of university facilities in order to avoid police involvement is settled once and for all so that all of the citizens of the province realize there is no portion of the province on which the ordinary writs do not run?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. I have always felt, Mr. Speaker, that there is no diplomatic immunity or any type of special treatment to be given to people on campi.

Some hon. members: Campi?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that an advertising agency?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But as I say, there has been a certain amount of objection to the --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is quite a Latinate fellow, isn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- entrance of police on campuses. We’ve had that discussed when we’ve had private bills from various universities in our standing committees. For some reason or other, they feel the campus police and certain organizations within the campus to look after discipline are sufficient. I agree with the hon. member that no place should be immune from the law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the Solicitor General also aware that this Western Guard outfit were not charged in any way by the police -- a private citizen had to lay charges for assault -- despite the havoc they wrought right in front of the television camera? Secondly, is he aware this group is also disrupting, in a somewhat fascist way, political meetings going on in Toronto at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as the incident on television is concerned, I would be very surprised if there are not more charges laid in respect of that incident.

Mr. Lewis: By whom?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am sure the investigation is going on, and I would think the police would lay charges.

Mr. Lewis: The minister would think the police would lay charges?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They have sufficient evidence, certainly with photographs and television coverage.

Mr. Lewis: By now one would think so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: See how interested the Attorney General is?

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary: As these Western Guard white-supremacy people are never likely to give advance warning of the actions they are about to take, can the Solicitor General assure the House that these people, many of whom are well known, are being kept under some sort of surveillance?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think I can give the hon. member the assurance that the members, the executive, and the general hierarchy of the Western Guard are known to the police.

Mr. Lewis: I should hope so.

Mr. Lawlor: I would have thought so.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: Can the minister do anything about this hate phone call they have now where you phone a certain number and a speech is given over the phone spewing forth hate for Negroes, Jews and other minority groups? Is there any way of stopping this?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would think, Mr. Speaker, that would in some way be in breach of telephone legislation. It certainly --

Mr. Breithaupt: Move to protect Joe Burnett too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- is in breach of a certain type of federal legislation; I don’t know whether it’s a question of obscenity or not, but I’ll look into it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD PENSIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, if he is aware of the substantial disappointment in the provisions in the amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act which he has introduced recently. Since he has refused to allow this to go to standing committee, will he at least table the background information that led to the bill which he introduced a few days ago?

Mr. Speaker: I am just wondering whether that is a proper question in view of the fact that on the order paper there is a bill to be discussed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It is not an appropriate question.

Mr. Speaker: I wasn’t paying that close attention to the wording of the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Neither was the minister, I am afraid.

Mrs. Campbell: It is perfectly in order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George says it was perfectly in order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Therefore it must be. And I appreciate the attitude taken by both of you.

Will the minister table the reports and the background information that led him to the establishment of the sections in the bill -- which we will be debating, it is true, in the next few hours or days -- which led him to make the changes in the Workmen’s Compensation Board pensions for injured workmen, which obviously are such a serious disappointment to those people directly concerned?

Mr. Renwick: Out, out, damned spot!

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, no I am not prepared to do that. As I said, it was a judgement matter and they are not indexed; I announced that to the House earlier. It is a figure that has been based on what has been done for other groups; it is not tied in with indexing, although the cost of living was one of the guides, of course. But I am not prepared to table all the background material.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Since I allowed the hon. Leader of the Opposition the one question, I will allow one supplementary to the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Is it true that in fact there is no formula; that in fact there was no consideration given to the impact of the increase on the people who needed it the most, and that in fact the government simply picked a figure out of a hat without any consideration for the effect that this would have on the majority of the injured workmen in the province?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to agree to that, no. Certainly there was consideration of many things, and it wasn’t just out of the air. Judgement is just that -- judgement.

Mr. Deans: Ten dollars, regardless of the effect.

Mr. Bounsall: Pick a figure out of a hat.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But, Mr. Speaker, we will be debating the bill, I trust, in the near future so I won’t say anything more now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think one question from each party on that is sufficient; it is on the order paper.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition has no further questions, the hon. member for Scarborough West.

DEATHS AT GENERAL STEELWARES PLANT

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, why is it not possible for the men who work at the General Steelwares plant in Fergus to receive the final report, drawn together by the minister’s industrial safety branch, relating to the number of deaths which occurred in that plant for reasons and causes as yet unknown?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion over whether that is my report or the Minister of Health’s report, but I have had an inquiry this afternoon from one of the newspapers and I undertook to find out whose report it was. I know of no reason why it can’t be released. I think we need to find out whose report it is and let them release it. If it’s ours, I see no reason why it can’t be.

Mr. Lewis: For whom does Mr. McNair work?

Mr. Cassidy: Labour.

Mr. Lewis: It’s labour, is it not? Industrial safety branch?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Right.

Mr. Lewis: Then it is most certainly the minister’s report and it would be appreciated if it could be tabled.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right.

UNION GAS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour further, is he confident in his own mind that the negotiations now involved in the Union Gas dispute are of a kind which are serious in content, are in good faith from Union Gas’ viewpoint and will lead to a settlement within a matter of days?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, this is the 58th day they have been meeting. I have no indication of bad faith on either part; it’s simply that they have not reached agreement. I am not prepared to say that either party to it is acting unreasonably or in bad faith. We had hoped that there would be agreement before now but I am unable to report any. I think the meetings are not as productive in the last few days as they were earlier. I hope there will come a period again when they are more productive. I have to keep repeating that agreement is agreement and I have no way of forcing agreements.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West has a supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Would the minister indicate to the negotiating committee one section of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which is about to be changed, indicating that women cannot be discriminated against with respect to insurance and pensions? It is forthcoming and has been recommended by one of those committees studying the Human Rights Com- mission. This seems to be one of the points of major disagreement at the moment.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I can’t contemplate what this House may do if, as and when that legislation is introduced. I suppose they know as much of the background as the member does and I think they’ll probably be taking that into consideration in their negotiations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: The minister indicated some days, almost weeks ago, when he was very fresh on the scene -- he is now an old hand at this matter -- that the time was not ripe for him to enter the negotiations himself. Since it may be that these will drag on for many more days, perhaps weeks, what would lead him to enter the negotiations -- simply the elapse of time or a return to the real dangers which have been associated with this strike in many of the communities over the last week?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if I thought I could accomplish anything and the time was ripe, I would be certainly prepared to do so, whenever my advisers recommend that I can be helpful by doing so. I understand the people are not that close together, nor is there anything I can do at this point to bring them closer together.

Mr. Renwick: One never knows without trying.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister try it just in case?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

STRIKES AT DARRIGO AND FORT FRANCES CLINIC

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: As he flexes his muscles and intellect in his new job, has he yet come up with an answer to the impossible situation of Darrigo in Metropolitan Toronto, involving several score employees, and the Fort Frances clinic as it respects the right of working people to reach a first agreement under the laws of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have no further answer to what I gave the other day.

We are trying to work something out with Darrigo to keep that situation open for longer. We are acting --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Are they bargaining?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I don’t think there’s any active bargaining going on at the present time but we are certainly trying to keep the situation open so that the certification will not be lost.

The Fort Frances situation is similar. It’s a bitter one, as members know, and I had discussions last evening on that with some of the officials of CUPE. I hope something will be coming on both of those but I find in this position often one has to live on hope and a good amount of faith. I hope they’ll pay off shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Hope aside, and perhaps even faith aside for the moment --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: And a little charity on the job.

Mr. Lewis: -- may I ask if it has occurred to the minister that he might personally contact the management at the Fort Frances medical clinic or their legal counsel, that he might personally contact the owners of Darrigo Food Market and exercise the considerable authority he has as Minister of Labour to explain that it bothers him that the laws of Ontario be trampled on in this fashion and that he would urge them to return to the bargaining table with a good-faith offer? Doesn’t the minister think that it’s time for him to personally exercise influence in a case of that type?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have that under consideration and it may be that I’ll be doing that shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River has a supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Does the minister not now realize there is some necessity for legislation to ensure that in the matter of the first contract the government has a responsibility on the behalf of the people of Ontario and the working people that this first bargaining contract be brought in and that the minister has to bring in legislation to ensure that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the matters I said that I would give consideration to over the summer months; as to whether or not there should be some sort of basic contract.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): In the fullness of time, eh?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question: Has the Minister of Labour consulted with his colleague, the Attorney General, to place before the Attorney General the facts in both the Darrigo case and the Fort Frances case to determine whether or not under the laws of the Province of Ontario, as they presently stand, a prosecution could not be instituted on behalf of government for failure to bargain in good faith?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My understanding is, as far as failure to bargain in good faith, that it is up to one of the parties to make a complaint before the Ontario Relations Board.

Mr. MacDonald: That is the problem, though; that is the problem.

Mr. Bounsall: It is time the government changed the law.

Mr. Renwick: By way of further supplementary: Will the minister ask the Attorney General for his opinion as to whether or not the traditional view of the Labour ministry is correct in accordance with the laws of the province?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Certainly, I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West has further questions?

DOFASCO PLANT AT PORT BURWELL

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he has joined with the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture in their expression of opposition to the intention of Dofasco to build a fortress at Port Burwell, which they are deeply concerned will cause serious environmental destruction to agricultural land. Maybe “fortress” throws the minister off; but plant is what I mean.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am concerned about it and I’ve expressed that concern to the Norfolk Federation of Agriculture; but I would have to say at the same time that the decision to go ahead with that plant was made when there was an enormous amount of surplus of almost every agricultural commodity that one could name. As a matter of fact, governments were encouraging the disinterest in further production of food in this country and in the United States. So, there is an entirely different situation abroad today than what there was then.

In my opinion it is a little late in the game to say we are not going to go ahead with a proposition like that -- to be practical and realistic. What happens in the future, I think that’s something else. It’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since there were serious reservations at the time and since you’ve had, as well as others, a great concern about the consequences of an Arnprior dam, or a southern pipeline, or Highway 402 southwest of London, all of these factors which now appear to be damaging agricultural land; does the minister not think it is time for the government to intervene to take a look at that whole Lake Erie industrial corridor to see the aggravated consequences for agriculture? Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) for an impact study before any further progress is undertaken by Dofasco?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course, I could ask him. That doesn’t say he would do it.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister feel strongly enough about it to do it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I feel keenly, yes; but I do believe that there comes a time when one has to take a position on decisions that have been made a long time ago -- and those plans are all under way. To reverse that kind of a decision today to me, would be a bit inappropriate.

Mr. Deans: Maybe the minister should have given some thought to it at the time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West has further questioning?

Mr. Lewis: I just have one question. I am not sure whom to put it to unless the Chairman of the Management Board is in the precincts of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: The deputy Premier.

Mr. Lewis: All right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Provincial Secretary for Social Development has the answer to a question previously asked.

MINI-SKOOLS LTD.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I now have additional information in answer to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party.

One June 20, I said that I had no knowledge of any connections between Mini-Skools Ltd. and Great-West Life. Mr. Speaker, I now have additional information which indicates that Great-West Life Assurance Co. acquired 30 per cent of the common shares of Mini-Skools during 1972 and that Great-West Life still holds those shares. Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that daycare centres licensed under the Day Nurseries Act are not required to file such information.

I am sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition realizes that I did not intend to mislead the hon. members, any more than he did when he referred yesterday to Great-West Life as an American company.

Mr. Speaker, to make the record clear, I would like to point out that Mini-Skools were founded in Canada, that more than 90 per cent of the common stock and 100 per cent of the preferred stock, is owned by Canadians, and that all but one member of the company’s board of directors are Canadians.

Mr. Renwick: Is there a franchise?

Mr. Cassidy: It would be nice to see daycare run for people and not for profit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the minister if she is going to get further information as to the profit status of Mini-Skools, since it was referred to in the annual report of Great-West Life as -- I forget the exact words -- an excellent investment by the Great-West Life of their funds because of the profit return? Could she inform herself as to the profit status and perhaps indicate a concern that this aspect of services to the community should not be on a profit-making basis and that our policy should reflect that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, it never has been the policy of the daycare branch to inform themselves of the financial backgrounds of the groups who were interested in providing daycare services to this province. As long as they complied with the Day Nurseries Act, and were supervised and were providing a very worthwhile and a very necessary service to this province, that’s all that was necessary. But I am sure that information that the hon. member asked for is available and I will make sure that he receives it.

Mr. Renwick: A supplementary question,

Mr. Speaker: Would the Provincial Secretary for Social Development ascertain whether or not Mini-Skools in Canada is operated under any franchise from the United States organization?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t believe that it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: Would she ascertain that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I will.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of her many responsibilities, does the minister also intend to ask the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) to bring in unqualified personnel, to increase class sizes and to farm out the school system of the province to private operators who will do it for profit?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

MILLBROOK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to questions from the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) and the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), and the concerns expressed to me by the member for Durham (Mr. Carruthers), regarding the village of Millbrook water and sewage programme.

After some careful checking with the ministry, to the best of my knowledge and ability there were no bylaws lost. I was also asked what has happened since 1967. Mr. Speaker, I’m not used to giving long answers, but I am afraid I am going to have to take a little longer to give the proper answer here.

Mr. Deans: Why wasn’t there a statement?

Hon. B. Newman: On Jan. 19, 1967, applications for provincial water and sewage programmes were submitted by the municipality.

On Feb. 9, 1967, application approved by the Ontario Water Resources Commission.

On March 9, 1967, the OWRC negotiated with a consulting firm concerning the provision of services.

On May 18, 1967, engineering agreement with consultant executed by the Ontario Water Resources Commission.

June 6, 1967, government policy announced to include water distribution and sewer systems as part of the provincial programmes.

June 21, 1967, consultant requested to hold work in abeyance until it could be determined whether or not reformatory would participate in the provincial scheme and until test drilling could be conducted.

August, 1967, conceptual briefs submitted by consultant.

October, 1967, test drilling programme approved by the commission.

December, 1967, tenders from drilling con- tractors were opened.

In January, 1968, Ontario Department of Public Works advised the OWRC that it could not at that time indicate whether or not it would participate in the provincial scheme.

January, 1968, drilling contract executed by OWRC.

February, 1968, consultant advised to commence work on design report to serve the village excluding the reformatory.

March, 1968, test drilling completed, sufficient ground water located.

April 22, 1968, public hearing held to discuss site of proposed oxidation ditch.

May, 1968, meeting held with township of Cavan to discuss sewage works programme.

June, 1968, design reports received to consultants.

July 10, 1968, application made to CMHC regarding eligibility of works.

November, 1968, meeting held with the consultant to discuss technical aspects of design reports.

December, 1968, tentative rates for sewage and water services prepared.

January, 1969, rates approved by commission.

January, 1969, again, municipality requested the OWRC to make a decision on proposals.

May, 1969, Ontario Department of Public Works requested that reformatory be included in provincial sewage programme.

May, 1969, village council and Mr. Carruthers, MPP, attended meeting with OWRC to discuss financial proposals.

July, 1969, incomplete sewage bylaws received by commission and returned to municipality.

July, 1969, water works application of bylaws forwarded to OMB by commission.

August, 1969, corrected bylaws submitted by village council.

September, 1969, OMB turns down village’s applications for waterworks.

September, 1969, municipality requested to comment on reduction of the frontage rate to 20 cents per foot.

October, 1969, provincial assistance programme announced.

November, 1969, municipality informed that commission it will undertake re-analysis of financing to determine extent of financial assistance; informed the Ontario Municipal Board to hold material on waterworks in abeyance. Council resolution agreeing with this procedure requested; no reply to date.

March, 1970, revised water analysis was submitted to the commission.

April, 1970, approval is given by the commission for a rate of 81.8 cents per 1,000 gal. of water, with a frontage rate of 20 cents and a connection charge of $11.99 per annum, and the province would provide approximately 35.2 per cent assistance.

April, 1970, revised sewage analysis was submitted to the commission.

April, 1970, the addendum was sent to the clerk-treasurer, outlining new bylaws to be passed for water.

April, 1970, approval is given to the proposed sewage rates at the commission meeting (No. 266) for a rate of 77.9 cents per 1,000 gal.

May, 1970, a revised summary was forwarded to tile municipality for the sewage programme.

May 22, 1970, the OWRC made a second application to the OMB.

July 19, 1970, application was made to OMB for sewage programme.

July, 1970, chairman of the Municipal Board delayed consideration of application until financial information received from the board of education.

December, 1970, the OMB requested publication of the notices for the water and sewage programmes.

January, 1971, the notices were published and repeated on Jan. 12, there were 72 objections received.

May 10, 1971, date set for OMB hearing.

May, 1971, OMB hearing. The board dismissed the applications.

July, 1971, we requested a council resolution stating whether the village wished to proceed with the programmes.

August, 1971, village decided to have referendum to decide. A public meeting was held and the rates were revised,

November, 1971, a revised sewage proposal is sent to the village; as a result of the plebiscite, there were twice as many people in opposition as in favour to it. Council decided not to accept the revised proposal.

February, 1972, report drafted under the Ontario Water Resources Act. This was held in abeyance for some time during reorganization of the ministry and it took some time to prepare the report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What happened to the bylaws?

Hon. W. Newman: They were not lost.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: March, 1973, J. R. Barr recommended to Mr. Sharpe that mandatory order be issued.

May, 1973, rates revised again based on revised financial assistance policy.

May, 1973, revised proposals sent to village.

August, 1973, meeting held with village to discuss proposals.

September, 1973, village returns some of the bylaws.

December, 1973, we requested that the village correct some bylaws.

January, 1974, village returned corrected bylaws. Village requested by telephone to send full bylaws. Village sends requested bylaws in March, 1974.

March 27, 1974, preliminary application made to OMB.

April 11, 1974, village requested to affix corporate seal to bylaws and return to us.

May 1, bylaws returned by the village.

May 28, following telephone call, facts out- standing received from the village.

The present application is before the Ontario Municipal Board waiting for a hearing date before we can proceed any further with it.

Mr. Speaker: The reply to the question took about twice as long as a normal reply, therefore I will add three minutes to the question period.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is it not true, after the original application of June, 1973, when everything was approved and the bylaws were sent in, that the papers lay in the minister’s water resources department and that nothing was done by his ministry until the clerk-treasurer came down and was told that the papers were here some- where and nothing had been done because of the transfer of personnel? In fact, they were given the answer that they were lost down here.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the supplementary question, I said that after exhaustive searches and after exhausting the question myself with staff, we can find nowhere where any bylaws were lost or misplaced. I have the tapes here. Do you want me to read them over again -- from 1973 on?

Mr. Deans: Yes, start in 1969.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that the recital of six years of interminable red tape would indicate the need for the province to completely reappraise its approach to providing services to municipalities? Since these agreements and bylaws add nothing to the availability of the provinces to provide money to build these services, shouldn’t the province disregard this programme and its approach and bring in a programme of just servicing municipalities without these stupid agreements?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the member was not listening as I recited the Graham tapes. The Ontario Municipal Board twice --

Mr. Deacon: I heard. Six or seven years.

Hon. W. Newman: -- turned down the applications. The Ontario Municipal Board twice turned down the applications and the village itself went to referendum at one point in time.

Mr. Deacon: There is only one reason.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, my question is -- excuse me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is everything all right?

Mr. Speaker: All right. The hon. member for Downsview is next.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could attract the wandering Attorney General. Could we have him here so that he could answer a question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is he running for something?

Mr. Singer: Yes, he has been so busy this afternoon. What is he lobbying for?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Let a decent interim elapse after July 8 for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Singer: Now that I have the Attorney General’s undivided attention.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister know where the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) is this afternoon?

Mr. Speaker: If I could interrupt the member for Scarborough West.

There are just a few minutes remaining.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Singer: Now that I have the Attorney General’s undivided attention, in view of his very brave and forward-looking statement about family law this afternoon, could he be equally brave and forward looking and perhaps do away with the doctrine of gross negligence, now that he is going to allow a husband to sue his wife or wife to sue her husband for motor vehicle negligence? Could he perhaps, as well, do away with the principles of dower and curtsy, because, this is the day of advanced thinking, and brave attorneys general? Could we take those additional brave steps?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the expression of confidence of the hon. member that the family law bill as introduced will receive his support. I will be glad to take into consideration the questions which he has raised just now.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West, supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Since, at the heart of the Murdoch case and the family law commission were the matters of the positive rights to share family property and the question of the matrimonial home, how is it that the minister has avoided those two aspects completely and set them aside for other legislation when he makes this statement today?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has raised the question because, quite sincerely, I thought I made some reference in the statement that I appreciated that matters he has just made reference to have to be addressed as well. There is no question that what we --

Mr. Bounsall: Why don’t you do it now?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- propose to do in this bill looks after the Murdoch case in its very strict, legalistic interpretation. But I do want to share with the hon. member and I hope that he will respect this, that before we move into the other areas, I have given an undertaking that there will be a little more time given for the public discussion. The Ontario commission on the status of women has asked for the opportunity to review those particular sections in some detail. They are having a symposium in October following which, and on the advice from which, I will then proceed to do the matrimonial home --

Some hon. members: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and family property in that type of detail. But I think that it would be a betrayal --

Mr. Singer: He can do away with dowry right now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- of the commitment to have some discussion on those points to proceed without having the benefit of this advice. In the meantime, I felt, and the Ontario Law Reform Commission invited me in its report, to proceed at least this far in Murdoch to show some genuine interest and intention to clear it up at this stage, and then to move into the other areas once I had the opinion and advice of those who had expressed some real concern on those particular points which the hon. member has made reference to.

Mr. Singer: It could probably work up to a green paper.

Mr. Speaker: I think with the few moments that are remaining, two supplementaries are reasonable. The hon. member for Lanark.

MILK PRICES

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Has the ministry had any discussions with its federal counterpart in regard to industrial milk pricing? If so, does he foresee an increase in the immediate future?

Mr. MacDonald: Eastern Ontario Tories interested in this at last! Well.

Mr. Wiseman: And, I am sure the minister is aware that --

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The member for York South sure hasn’t been.

Mr. Wiseman: -- the industrial milk producers are interested to know what it costs them to produce it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I think the question is quite proper and in order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted on a few occasions to discuss these matters with my federal counterpart, but I haven’t been able to catch up with him. He seems to be otherwise engaged these days.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have talked with his executive officers and expressed the concern which my friend from Lanark has mentioned. I was hopeful that last week, when the federal agricultural minister succeeded in getting some of his counterparts, or his cohorts in the federal cabinet, to a meeting of the dairy farmers of Canada, a meeting with Quebec dairy farmers and Ontario farmers, that they would have been able to come up with some sort of a mutual agreement.

To me, Mr. Speaker, it’s absolutely atrocious that the federal officials suggested to them: “Sure, you need an increase, but you can dangle or starve until after July 8. Then, if you re-elect us, send us back and we’ll give you something new. We’ll give you something different.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that’s an absolutely atrocious attitude for a government to adopt and, to me, it’s indicative of why they should be thrown out July 8.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for High Park.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Which leader of the party does the minister support?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for High Park is next.

LLBO POLICIES

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General. Has the Attorney General had an opportunity to take a look at the new policies that ha\e been developed by the Liquor Licence Board, specifically the one forbidding dancing at Ontario Place? What has gone wrong with those people? Will he please step in, since his subordinate minister refuses to act?

Mr. Bounsall: No dancing?

Mr. Deans: They are nuts.

Mr. Cassidy: No peanuts.

Mr. Deans: No T-shirts, no peanuts.

Mr. Cassidy: No dancing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to confer with my colleague on this recent development.

Mr. Bounsall: Why no peanuts?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They fall in their drinks.

Mr. Shulman: The Attorney General’s colleague is helpless. He says he can’t do anything over Mackey.

Mr. Deans: No dancing, no T-shirts, no peanuts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would be very happy to look into that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is next.

Mr. Cassidy: The Attorney General should look at the new BC laws.

Mr. Bounsall: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is no time for supplementaries. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINTER CAPITAL PROJECTS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. In light of the fact that both the federal and provincial governments have provided moneys for grants under the winter capital projects funds to assist municipalities in financing projects within their capital programme plans, and as financial assistance under this plan will be terminated as of June 30, 1975, will the minister consider extending that date until Dec. 30, 1975, in light of shortages and labour disputes that have hindered the development of the projects?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer): Mr. Speaker, that is the federal government’s cutoff date, but I’ll certainly speak to Mr. Stanfield after July 8.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is that only to get him to ask the question of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Good: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General -- if I can be heard.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: There are 60 seconds remaining.

RESALE OF HOME PROGRAMME HOUSES

Mr. Deans: Did the Ontario Provincial Police recommend to the Solicitor General that charges be laid as a result of the investigation into the sale of Home Ownership Made Easy homes? If so, how many investigations were conducted and in what areas of the province were the recommended charges to be laid?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, my information is that that investigation is still going on, but I will get the details for the hon. member.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. J. R. Smith, from the standing procedural affairs committee, on behalf of Mr. Morrow, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits ……. $ 1,392,000

Mr. Nuttall, from the standing miscellaneous estimates committee, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of Management Board be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

MANAGEMENT BOARD

Administration programme ………… $1,341,000

Policy development programme …….1,781,000

Management Board analysis programme ... 1,766,000

Management audit programme ……. 438,000

Employee relations programme ……. 523,000

Personnel services programme ……. 1,606,000

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that tomorrow, Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 o’clock, a.m., and adjourn not later than 1 o’clock, p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of a bill intituled An Act to reform certain Laws founded upon Marital or Family Relationships.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Clement, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any comments on the first reading of that bill?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I did that in my statement, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 a return, 18, 20 and 22 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 95, An Act to Restructure the County of Oxford.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Resuming the debate, Mr. Speaker, I think we were talking about the vast difference there is in a county form of government and the proposal here, which in my view and in the view of most people who have studied the bill, was adapted from all of the regional government bills. In fact it has characteristics in it which will develop a one-tier form of government much more quickly than it would be developed, say in the Waterloo area where more powers are left with the area government.

As we have progressed along these various regional government bills, we find that each one is aiming more and more towards a one-tier type of government which, while not politically acceptable, I am sure is in the back of the minds of the people on the government benches opposite. We find in every function the new county or region is taking over that they are taking over more and more functions than were first put out in, say the Niagara regional bill, the York bill or the Waterloo bill.

This is apparent in the planning section, which is the next section I wanted to say a few words about, where the Oxford planning area will be the only authorized planning area and the local municipal planning boards will be done away with, though there is permission for an advisory planning committee if it is deemed necessary.

I suppose if there is too much objection to this from the local levels, they would institute advisory committees down at the local area government level. This then is another example of moving away from, not only a county system to a two-tier government system, but from a two-tier government system to a one-tier regional government system.

The same is true in the section on health. The present health board is eliminated and this power is returned to the council, which to many people, I think, makes considerable good sense. But then we have the addition of the seven council members, and three members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

As for the police section, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say this, in all sincerity. I would hope that section 74 of the bill could be deleted in that it permits the minister, notwithstanding the provisions of the previous sections “to establish a police force for the whole or part of the county in such a manner as he determines.”

In other words, there is a possibility of local autonomy being completely lost in this policing section. If the minister says they are going to have a regional police force, that is what they are going to have. Experience has shown that regional police forces are very costly. While it is true the Regional Municipal Grants Act allows for a grant of $8 per capita as against $5 per capita if there is not a regional police force, believe me, Mr. Speaker, it will take much more than that increase in grant even to begin to offset the increased cost.

For the information of the people of Oxford, let me say this, the increase of policing costs in Waterloo region for this year has exceeded the total provincial grant of $8 per person, that is the increase from last year to this year has exceeded the whole new grant, which is $8, up from the previous year.

Under this policing section of the bill, we are back to the old, archaic ideas where a police commission shall be composed of the head of council, a judge of the county court designated by the Lieutenant Governor, and one other person designated by the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Why would they want a thing like that?

Talk about 19th century.

Mr. Good: We have argued in this House for five or six years that there should be local autonomy on the local police forces.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why a judge on the police commission?

Mr. Good: A three-man police commission made up of the head of government, a county court judge appointed by the Lieutenant Governor --

Mr. Bullbrook: They should be elected people, not appointed.

Mr. Good: -- and one other person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor is not even as good representation as in the recent regional government bills where at least there are two members of the regional council sitting on the police commission. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) went on record in a public statement over a year ago stating he was opposed to judges sitting on police commissions.

Mr. Bullbrook: The task force recommended it.

Mr. Good: But no other ministry of government will pick up the recommendation of the Solicitor General. Maybe he made it by mistake and maybe he feels he shouldn’t have said it publicly, but he has said it publicly. We agree with his statement. We have been presenting that particular point of view for many years in the House. But we go back to this archaic idea that existing boards or commissions and police committees are to be dissolved and new ones will be set up under the Police Act, which states there will be a judge appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, the head of council and one other person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. There is nothing new or constructive, nothing which is contributing to local autonomy in that particular section at all and I hope the people of Oxford will resist the establishment of a regional police force.

The waterworks and sewage works sections of this bill, Mr. Speaker, are another area in which this bill has gone completely to a one-tiered system. Not only has the provision of a water source gone to the regional or county level but also the responsibility for distribution. Not only has the establishment of sewage disposal systems but also the collection of sewage gone to the regional or county level. In these two particular aspects this bill has gone further to a one-tiered system of government than most other regional government bills.

The only thing the government hasn’t touched is it is still allowing the area governments to do their own tax collecting. That’s the only major thing left for them to do under this particular bill. I believe in the Peel or Halton bill the government was even toying with the idea of letting the region do the tax collecting, which would have completely destroyed the two-tier system.

One thing I think should be drawn to the attention of all members of the House is it has been my experience in all other regional government bills, in which we have the provision of sewer and water services going to the regional or county level, as they call it in this case, that people do not actually understand what is happening. I think most people do understand that from this point on, when this government is started, we will be pooling our waterworks, our sewage works, our plants and our operations. The cost of seeking additional supplies of water, the cost of future sewage disposal plants will be met by all those people who use those services.

But what people don’t understand, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the debenture commitments of the various municipalities in the region or in the area will also be shared and shared alike. I don’t know what the present situation is in Oxford county but I hope the people in Tavistock, for instance, understand that if there is a big debenture debt in, say Ingersoll or Woodstock, they will be helping to pay for a previous commitment. I think most people feel: “That’s fine; from here on we will share and share alike and we will bear each other’s burdens so that we can all have services at a more favourable price by having a regional rate and that will certainly help people in the smaller centres.”

I don’t think too many people understand the fact they are also going to be pooling their previous debts and debentures in these areas and that those who go into the new government with a small debenture debt are going to be helping to pay off the debenture debts of those accumulated previous to the date of the inception of this government.

These are the things, I think, which are least understood in all the regional government bills, with the result that after the implementation, in many cases, misunderstandings do develop.

On the financial sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the first concept to which I would like to draw attention is simply that the last number of regional government bills have been drawn up so that the levy of the area governments -- I refer to them in that way but in this case they would be the individual municipalities -- towards the top level of government, which in this case would be the county, are in proportion to the equalized and weighted assessment of each area government.

No one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation to me, and I’ve asked on several occasions, of the full implications of this weighted assessment. Mr. Speaker, if one municipality has the same assessment as another municipality one would think they would pay the same amount. Well they don’t, because the one is weighted so that if more of that assessment is industrial you are going to pay a bigger levy to the top level of government. That makes sense, but somewhere along the line these area municipalities are going to be asking themselves: “Does it pay us to try to get more industrial assessment and where do we -- ”

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): On a point of order, I don’t like to interrupt my friend and colleague, but I don’t think he should have to speak to a House in which there is no quorum, particularly since we are sitting inordinately long hours. I don’t think the opposition should have the responsibility of keeping a quorum in the House either. There are two members on the government side and three members in the government rump, and I’m sick and tired of it.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): We’ve got to have a rump; it is part of the government system.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Clerk count the members please?

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, there are 17 members.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe we now have a quorum.

The hon. member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the matter of the area government levies to the region, or in this case the municipal levies to the counties. On repeated occasions I have asked the ministry if somehow it could show a chart of some sort with a financial analysis of the affects of the in- creased weighting of the levies to the county or to the region in relationship to the amount of industrial assessment. No one has been able to give me a satisfactory answer on at what point it’s advisable or inadvisable to try to get more industrial assessment. One realizes that as more industrial assessment is obtained the greater is the weighting of the levy toward the area government.

This brings into question the whole procedure of whether industrial development and the industrial development officers should be on a regional or an area government basis.

On the matter of refuse disposal, as I see it in this bill, Mr. Speaker, the collection of the refuse for disposal is left at the area government level but the provision of the landfill sites will be a county responsibility.

That plus tax collection are the only two things of any consequence which will be left at the area government level. All the other things which the local councils are used to handling under the county system will now be done on the county basis.

One thing that disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) is in the House to hear this, it is still necessary to put into these regional government bills the section dealing with the public utilities commissions referred to in subsection 2. It says “ ... who hold office when this section comes into force shall continue to hold office until the date determined by the minister.”

This should not be. People should not be perpetuated in office. The public utilities commission of these new restructured governments should not continue to serve only those people they served before their government was restructured simply because the government has not as yet reached a decision on what it is going to do on the provision of electrical services across the province.

Whether it is going to be given over to local councils; whether it is going to be done on a regional basis; whether it is going to be done on an area government basis -- this controversy, Mr. Speaker, has been going on for at least two or 2 1/2 years. As yet, no decision has been made. People outside existing city municipalities are still being served by rural hydro at a much higher rate. People sitting on public utilities commissions are doing so without a mandate from the electorate in some areas because they can sit there until a date set by the minister.

Surely this particular question must be resolved in the near future because this has been gathering dust for at least two years. I think the provincial Treasurer should make an announcement very shortly on how he intends to handle the governing bodies which are going to deal with the distribution of electrical services in the regional and restructured areas of the province.

I don’t like that provision one bit.

One thing which I think is never properly explained to people in the areas when these regional governments are established -- and I doubt very much if many of the elected officials understand it properly -- is the difference between the transitional adjustments, that is transitional grants -- the discretionary powers given to the minister to pour in unlimited funds as he sees fit -- and the start up grants.

The whole basis and success of many of these restructured governments depends on the financial implications. In bill after bill we have argued that there should be some detailed financial studies done on what effect the restructuring of the government will have on the tax rate, on the level of services, on the cost of providing the same services under a new, grander form of government.

The government has consistently refused to do these studies. In some of the areas it has had practically all the data available to it because of recent studies done in the area. But the government has seen fit to say: “The good people of the area will take care of that.”

Believe me, they find out sooner or later -- and it is usually sooner much to their chagrin -- about the increased costs, which have been outlined to members previously by my leader. The transitional adjustments as set out in this bill in sections -- whatever they are -- are simply a matter of juggling moneys from one area government to another. They don’t help anyone because what this government takes away from one area government it has to add on to another area government.

When there are cases of severe hardship in one area municipality they can be alleviated by passing on part of that burden to the others and this decreases over a five-year period. The external money coming in from the province is what is really needed.

As mentioned by my leader, the region of Waterloo got only 24 per cent of the startup grants required; $1.8 million was the extra cost of startup in the first year. They got 24.5 per cent, I think it was, of that money, less than $250,000; when almost $2 million was needed.

When the area government of Cambridge went to the Treasurer, as reported in the newspaper, and said: “We have special problems because of the union of three former municipalities. We have additional costs; we think we should have additional startup grants and special considerations”; the answer, in effect, was: “You are just an area government. You can’t approach me as provincial Treasurer. You will have to go through your regional council and the regional chairman will bring your request to me.”

This is the level of esteem and the importance which the lower tier governments are accorded by the officials of this provincial government.

The part of the restructuring of the county which cheeses me off -- pardon me -- which disturbs me more than anything else, is the fact the government says this bill is restructuring the county of Oxford when it is nothing more than a new regional government bill. That’s the thing that disturbs me more than anything else. That and the conditions in the back of the bill, in section 138, by which the minister has unlimited power to make grants of whatever size he feels fit and to whatever government he feels it is necessary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): He will buy his way through in case it is a little tough the next time.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): With public funds.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, this could all be avoided if proper financial studies and research had been done to set before the people an accurate estimate of what their costs will be. While this may be nice, we think for the first few years we could get along with this and people would know what the future financial ramifications of this type of bill would be. We will oppose it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to enter the debate at any length at all because so much has been said today that I think anything further perhaps is repetitious, except for this. I want to stress this fact, Mr. Speaker, that I think in this debate something fundamental perhaps has been overlooked. That is, today we do face the absolute necessity for a different type of municipal government from what we have had since the Baldwin Act was passed over a century ago.

This is the thing which I think so often we forget, because in the kind of debate we have had we are looking back to those small municipalities -- 8,000 population, one of the speakers said this morning, and that was enough. That is just not enough to provide the services people are demanding today. It can’t be done.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The member doesn’t understand. He is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Ruston: It depends on the circumstances.

Mr. Young: The representatives of the Liberal Party, along with myself, fought this battle in the select committee on the Election Act and other related Acts.

Mr. Ruston: The member is going to vote for this bill then, I think?

Mr. Young: The member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) and the others signed the document. We fought our way through, asking for regional governments, larger municipal governments than we have today, pointing out that the thousand municipal governments we had in Ontario at that time were just too small to meet adequately the needs of this age. They were all right when the Baldwin Act was passed, sure. That was an advantage at that time; that was an advance. But today we need the kind of population groupings that can support the scientific and the technological advances we have available to give our people services we must have.

Mr. Deacon: I am surprised at the member. I am disappointed.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Right on. Say that again.

Mr. Ruston: He would have them so big he would need an airplane to get around them.

Mr. Young: It’s always easy to be nationalistic --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The real NDP attitude is coming out now. The real technocrat is speaking.

Mr. Ruston: Now we know where the NDP stand.

Mr. Young: It’s always easy to appeal to local prejudice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Young: It’s always very easy for the man in the small municipality to think: “Well, I have something here I like to have and I am a little afraid of the larger one.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The people there like it too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: All right. They may have won a by-election, that party may have won a by-election in Huron county on the basis of an appeal to local prejudice and to the past. All right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nonsense. The member sounds like a loser. He sounds like the member for Oxford. He sounds like a loser.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I take off my hat to the leaders of local governments who have the guts to stand up and say: “We’ve got to face the future. And we have to have something more.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the member going to say? How is he going to vote on this?

Mr. Young: All right; I’ll come to that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s see the other side of that --

Mr. Young: So it is that in this province we have been facing this restructuring of government; not the way I wanted to see it because of one fundamental flaw, and that fundamental flaw is, and I come to it, I say to the leader of the Liberal Party, I come to it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. It is great to hear the member; I have not heard enough of him recently.

Mr. Young: I come to it, and that’s why I say I didn’t want to speak at great length.

Mr. Ruston: No, because he put his foot in it.

Mr. Young: The one fundamental flaw is that this government has consistently refused to undergird the new municipalities with an adequate financial base. This is the place.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): That’s a clear point.

Mr. Young: That is why in Niagara and in other municipalities, the new regional municipalities, the government had to come in with the millions of dollars to bail them out when financial difficulties occurred.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member voted for that one.

Mr. Young: The government did not give them the financial base they needed. In this case, in Oxford county, the government had better take a look at it and it had better see that it puts in the thing that we have called for in this party, time after time, a municipal foundation plan.

Mr. Ruston: Centralization, that’s what it is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That has been --

Mr. Ruston: Socialism handed down.

Mr. Young: A municipal foundation plan where the government is giving adequate finances and adequate powers; adequate money power to these new municipalities so they can stand on their own feet and do the job: then it can hand back the powers that municipalities used to have.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: NDP technocrats.

Mr. Young: There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that municipalities -- and someone said it here today -- the municipalities have been gradually seeing their powers eroded; the little ones because they haven’t had the power, the ability to stand up to the erosion of the ministerial failings at the provincial level. So 95 per cent of the grants, of the financing, went to the small municipalities, but they were not allowed to spend that money except according to the dictates of the province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Amen.

Mr. Young: That’s where the problem was. Now let’s give to these new municipalities -- which, I say again, modem technology demands -- let’s turn over to them more and more of the powers which have been taken away from them year after year by the ministry of this government. That’s all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. Let’s get around to the place --

Mr. Ruston: Is the member going to vote for the bill or against it?

Mr. Young: -- where we undergird these new municipalities with the financial powers they must have. Until the government does this, we in this party just can’t agree to support the kind of legislation which it is bringing in here today.

An hon. member: Boy, oh boy.

Mr. Young: We agree with the general principle --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Pretty weak, pretty weak.

Mr. Young: -- of reorganization of municipal government, just as the representative of the Liberal Party did when the report came in on the Municipal Act and related Acts.

Mr. Ruston: Fifteen years ago?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Those fellows over there are a bunch of reactionaries.

Mr. Young: AH right. We agree with that general principle, but let’s get the kind of undergirding which will make that principle work in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that we on this side are in favour of local government reform. But we want to be sure that local government reform is really --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member had better speak to his leader.

Mr. Deacon: No, no; one thing they have got to learn to do on the other side is listen, because on this side we have been listening to people and we are recognizing that although they want reform, we want to be sure that reform is not jumping from the frying pan into the fire and that it is truly providing answers to the problems that municipalities have today.

It isn’t a question of size. I know that “Lord Darcy,” when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, in answer to a question in Barrie as to why he was choosing a size of 200,000 to 300,000 people, said: “Because, indeed, we have found that that is the easiest size of a municipality or structure to administer from Queen’s Park.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s how it was resolved.

Mr. Deacon: His idea was how easy is it to administer from Queen’s Park, not how well it will serve the people; not how well it will answer their needs; not imaginary needs that may be wanted by some other municipality, but the local needs, because surely government is to serve people and not people to serve governments.

It is well known, if the minister studies the figures of his own ministry, that the cost of government, a government which satisfies the needs of the people in Metro, is four to five times that in small municipalities. Now the member for Yorkview may say the service is inadequate, but the service is not inadequate because the people will bring the service up to the level they want.

Modem technology, I think, should be confined to being a resource available to people so they can see what other municipalities have and then choose whether or not they want it. But they should not be persuaded to accept services on the basis of some bribery in the form of extra grants in order to adopt regional government.

We do not all, in this province, want to be a guest of that giant Procrustes who had a bed to which he fitted his guests. If they were too short he stretched them to fit; if they were too long, he lopped off their arms to fit. That is what this government has wanted to do as it created these municipalities around the province -- fit the people and their local government into the pattern it wants.

We believe the minister should develop his reform of local government by having a committee of municipal leaders, which he’s had in the past, and by providing those leaders with background information based on the most important problems of existing local government systems. He should give them alternatives and help them develop alternative solutions; then develop cost-benefit studies of the various solutions including changes of local area boundaries. These should include changes in the realm of government in which services will be provided and show not only the cost but the benefit.

Let the public be informed, as these meetings proceed, so they have information from the minutes as to what research findings are coming out so that the public can see if there is, indeed, benefit from the various changes proposed.

In York, we didn’t have the benefit of that sort of analysis. We tried to have that provided and we thought we had found we could provide such an analysis, where the people could be involved over a six-month period for a cost of maybe $75,000. But no. It was decided that Queen’s Park would, in effect, have separate meetings with the various local groups and then, with its power of persuasion through the almighty grant system, persuade the local representatives on a ministerial committee that indeed municipal government in the form of regional government would be the best thing for us.

We know what happened in York. We know that we had a fantastic increase in costs. We know we now have a big staff, big salaries, big titles, big heads and big taxes. And we haven’t had improvement in service. You talk to the people in York, the ordinary citizen, and ask him how much he feels regional government has helped in our area. It hasn’t helped at all. It has really removed government from the community.

It’s for that reason we are so strongly opposed to these regional police forces. With the best intention of leadership, it is still removing that local involvement that is so important to good government, where people feel they’re part of it and have some effect on it. We have excellent people in our regional health and welfare operation, but only two per cent of the people in our community even know we have such public health services and what is available. Only two per cent know, because they are not involved. It’s all run by the experts at the centre at costs that are great and of no real benefit to the community.

Roads: There’s an article in the Star about the disaster we’ve had with roads up in the York region. Look at the desert and the disaster they’ve made of communities like King and Maple, as they cut their swaths of asphalt through the region. And why? Because they are removed from the community. It wouldn’t be allowed in the community. But when they only have one or two representatives to go to council, and when the thrust of leadership comes from the chairman, the administrator and the chief engineer, it’s pretty tough to turn it back, because their representatives are miles and miles apart.

It’s very difficult for the citizens to become involved and to have any impact on the result.

That is why we’re opposed to this removal of authority, responsibility and resources at the local level and the imposition of government at a level very convenient for the government at Queen’s Park to administer and control. But it’s very much removed from those who should be controlling it, the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers in the community.

I wish this minister, who himself was mayor of a small community, would go back and look at this whole matter of government reform from his former position. He should look at it from the point of view of what would benefit his community, and not what would benefit Queen’s Park or what would be easiest so that Queen’s Park will be able to control things.

In York we certainly didn’t have much success in this party in the 1971 elections because the people then didn’t know what regional government was going to cost them. But they now know, and this government will see in 1975, or whenever they call the next election, just what the people think of the government reform that’s been imposed on them. It’s got a bad name now, regional government, and only because the people who have been controlling the --

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Who gave it a bad name?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Do the Liberals want to put it in trusteeship as they did with the school boards?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well they’re not having it in Middlesex, they’re not having it in Chatham and they’re not having it in Prescott; that’s for sure.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Will it be in Kent next?

Mr. Deacon: The people who have been directing the affairs of this province by legislation have been trying to bribe us with our own money. They’re setting up high-salary positions so that those who are supposedly our local representatives are much more representatives of the province, flunkeys of the province, than they are representatives of the community.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the county council of Middlesex going to guide the destiny of the city of London? Is that what the minister proposes?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s going to be the gate- keeper at Komoka Park, if he’s lucky.

Mr. Deacon: I am disappointed that in this bill the so-called reform of government in the county of Oxford is not one that’s backed by facts and figures and information so that the public obviously can see the sense and the need for whatever this legislation says. It isn’t there. It’s a typical example of what we’ve had for the past several years; government imposed on the people and it isn’t good. It is going to destroy our sense of community. It’s going to destroy the very basis of democracy in Ontario, and it’s time we defeated bills like this. The supporters of this government on the other side should recognize that this is the time to vote against this bill and give Oxford a chance to really reform government, not have more regional government and the high costs of that type of government.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to take part in this debate?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Let’s give him a hand.

Mr. Deans: Is that the extent of the applause?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: St. Joseph Island is interested in the member for Wentworth’s remarks.

Mr. Deans: I bet they are. They had better read somebody’s remarks -- because they can’t read their own member’s.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deans: I don’t want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but there are a couple of things that I do want to say about it.

Like a lot of members, I had thought about a year ago that we had come to the end of the regionalization programme of the Province of Ontario -- or if not to the end, at least we had come to a point at which we were going to pause. We were going to reflect on what was happening and we were going to come to some rather concrete decisions about whatever the future of local government was to be in the Province of Ontario.

That attitude was made evident by statements of the Treasurer and by statements of other members of the cabinet that there had been errors made, and that those errors had to be adjusted. That there had been miscalculations, and that the miscalculations had to be properly understood. And that before we embarked on any further regionalization, we were going to come about with a programme that would provide adequate financing for any new regions, or any new municipalities that were to be formed.

This bill is, in fact, a regional government bill. It doesn’t follow the exact concept followed in previous regional government bills, but it is in itself a form of regionalization -- and there is no point in kidding anybody about it.

It seems to me, in looking back over the last seven years, that the one thing we ought to have learned -- if there was any lesson at all to be learned from what has happened -- is that before we began another programme of regionalization we were going to have to establish three things quite clearly: First, the impact of costs on the existing regions; second, how that cost was being shared; and third, what was going to occur by way of additional costs to the municipalities making up the regions when the government of Ontario finally opted out from the rather lavish grants they were bestowing upon the various regions that have been established.

The one thing that we never seemed to have gotten around to discussing, Mr. Speaker, is what’s going to happen to the municipal tax rate when this government stops paying its transitional grants; when this government stops making the rather large sums of moneys available that they have had to make available over the last three or four years in order to establish some kind of fiscal equity within the regions that have been set up under bills not unlike this one.

I can’t help but feel, in looking at what’s happening in my own municipality that we don’t understand the tremendous financial burden that we are placing on the taxpayers and residents of those municipalities when we continue with the kind of regionalization that this government has been embarked upon.

I think we have got to try to appreciate what the total cost is, and how the moneys not only are being spent but are being raised, before we go any further in restructuring local government.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Regional government for the minister’s area! He would not dare put it in his area.

Mr. Deans: Well this may be true. I don’t think there is any question here at all that there is going to be, over the course of time, a need to restructure the local government. I don’t think there is any question about that.

Mr. Parrott: The need is now.

Mr. Deans: The member’s colleague, the member for Oxford, says the need is now. But perhaps what the member for Oxford isn’t taking into consideration is that the people who benefit --

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Better get a new set of glasses.

Mr. Deans: -- are going to have to understand what the cost of what little they are about to achieve is going to be.

They are going to have to somehow or other be made aware of the total cost of the regionalization programme. They are going to have to be made aware of what happens when the government finally opts out of its grants programme and leaves them to their own devices to find the wherewithal to pay for the programmes and schemes the government has encouraged them to embark upon.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that right to this day in the Hamilton-Wentworth region they have not yet set a budget? This is almost the end of June and they haven’t yet established the budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do they have it in Peel?

Mr. Deans: Does the minister realize they haven’t yet set a budget in the Peel region; and does he know why they haven’t? Because there was no guidance at all from the Province of Ontario with regard to the cost and the amount of cost that will be placed upon the local municipality in the transition and in the changeover. They have no earthly idea what it’s going to cost them to administer the many programmes that have been thrust upon them by an Act of the Legislature, even though they took part in the discussion.

There is no way they can assess it, and therefore they are staggering along day by day hoping at some point to be able to establish a total budget and a mill rate and to levy it upon the member municipalities.

I say this not as a politician, although that happens to be what I am, I say it as a taxpayer; that we in the Hamilton area dread the day when that budget is going to come down. We dread it because some of us suspect that much of the spending that’s taking place in the region is based on the grants and the additional payments being made by the Province of Ontario to the regional municipality, and that when and if -- and I say if and when, and I think that is not even fair -- the province finally cuts off those grants, as it’s committed to do after a five-year period in some instances, the total cost will have to be borne by the region. That means increased municipal taxes.

It’s time we had an assessment of what the people in the municipalities are going to get for the increased municipal taxes. It’s time we did an accurate case-by-case assessment across the province to determine what the local municipalities are going to be expected to pay for whatever it is they are getting. You and I both know, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons this government has not gone ahead with its province-wide assessment programme is it can see there are going to be tax shifts there and that those tax shifts will undoubtedly reflect on higher costs to residences. If the government compounds that problem by forcing municipalities to involve themselves in programmes which they previously would not have gone ahead with at this time, it is going to inflict upon the municipal taxpayers a burden which they frankly will not be able to carry.

Mr. Haggerty: Send Mayo back for another study of the Niagara region.

Mr. Deans: I think the most sensible thing the government could have done, given that it went ahead without giving due consideration to cost in the regions that it had already established, and the thing that I thought it was doing, was to have stopped, in order to have assessed accurately, or as accurately as is humanly possible, both the cost and the benefit to the various regions that have been established and then make appropriate adjustments to ensure that those regions, since they are now forced to carry on in a new regionalization programme, have the financial base from which to operate before the government carried on further with the regionalization of the Province of Ontario.

I suspect that had the government done that we wouldn’t have seen any further regionalization. We might well have seen amalgamations of some municipalities. We may well have seen a greater degree of co-operation between municipalities in order to take advantage of additional grants that may well have been available, but we wouldn’t have seen the kind of restructuring which is totally foreign and has proven to be extremely costly.

There is no point in saying, as the minister has to a number of members in this House, that the increase in cost as borne by the local municipalities is marginal or has not risen by 20, 30 or 40 per cent. What has to be taken into consideration is not only the cost that is borne by the local property tax but also the additional cost being borne by the provincial grants and the transitional grants that have been made available. They have to be taken into account when one is determining what it really costs to regionalize Ontario. Then once the government knows what it costs to regionalize Ontario, it can accurately assess whether the benefits that flow from regionalization are worth the additional financial burden.

It looks nice. It looks nice across the province to eliminate small municipalities and have great big municipalities; municipalities perhaps with a great deal more oomph and punch in the way in which they operate.

Maybe it’s easier, when you have a conference in Queen’s Park of local municipal leaders, to call in the regional chairman and two or three representatives from the regional municipality, as opposed to having representation made by the many hundreds of municipalities at the local level. Maybe it’s easier to sell your programmes when you have fewer people before you at any given time and in any given board room in an effort to try to involve them in the Province of Ontario and the government of Ontario schemes. Maybe those things are all easier.

But the people of the Province of Ontario are having to bear the burden of costs; and the burden of costs, I suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is onerous indeed. It is a burden which is not reflected, not adequately reflected, in benefits and additional services.

Until such time as it is, and until such time as we understand in this House, not only we in the opposition but many of the minister’s own backbenchers, until such time as we can look and see clearly that there are, in fact, benefits to be gained that are proportionate to the costs that are to be borne, you have an obligation not to proceed further with regionalization.

And that, basically, is why we are opposed to this bill. It is not a matter of the nitty-gritty of the bill, the nitty-gritty of the bill is not significantly different from the nitty-gritty of other bills that have come in. The content of the bill, taken clause by clause, is not significantly different from the content of other bills that have come in.

The problem really is much more fundamental, much more basic. And that is that the government hasn’t the faintest idea what it is costing the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario to institute regional government.

The government hasn’t the faintest idea what the taxpayers of the local municipalities are getting by way of benefits from the changeover that has taken place; and the minister can’t point with any assurance to any municipality and show us that for the additional cost that is being borne, both by way of direct taxation and by way of government grant, there are proportionate benefits to be derived. Because of that, we will oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member wishing to take part in this debate?

If not, the hon. minister.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not much support there.

Mr. Cassidy: Overwhelming support from that side of the Legislature.

An hon. member: The minister has two-and-a-half members on that side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if we had two-and-a-half members over here, they are worth a lot more than what is over there, so don’t let anybody kid you.

I’m delighted to take part in this discussion. This, in my opinion, is a bill which is a very historic bill, which will be one that the opposition will rue the day they voted against.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is one that has nailed the Leader of the Opposition right into his coffin. If he ever was in before, he is in a lot deeper right now. The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand local government.

Mr. Haggerty: Let the minister put it in his own region. Let him be a man and put it in his own region.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the Leader of the Opposition understood local government, he wouldn’t have spoken as he did this morning.

I am delighted, and I say to the representative from Oxford county that I am delighted they were here, that the warden and the chairman of the implementing committee and his staff members were present when the Leader of the Opposition made his remarks and when the remarks were made by the NDP. I am delighted they are here to know what these people are saying. The opposition parties have lost their credibility with the people from Oxford.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not at all.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense; the minister has sold them a bill of goods.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Their credibility goes when they say this bill was imposed by the government. This bill was not imposed by the government, and the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) had no idea whatsoever when he said this is Queen’s Park imposed. I am sorry he is not here now. He should understand that this started back in 1973. And as the member for Oxford very properly brought forward to the members of the House, this was initiated, this was the ingenuity of the people at the local level --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, it was a wardens’ committee.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And certainly we have assisted them at all times.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Where? On Main Street?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I know full well that when --

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the minister mean this is just the thin end of the wedge?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- this study report was brought to the minister in August -- in May, first of all, 1973 -- when it was brought to us, they asked for assistance. We did give them assistance.

Mr. Bullbrook: If only he would do this for all the municipalities at once.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was August when we carried on considering the report. We have had many meetings with the staff and with the elected people in the area.

I would like to itemize some of them, but I think there are really too many to take the time of the House. There would be at least 12 or 15 very important meetings held between August, 1973, until the time I met, with my staff and with the member for Oxford, all the representatives of the county and the city, the city of Woodstock and the separated town of Ingersoll.

We met them and then we said: “It’s up to you people. It’s your report. You paid for it. You initiate it. If you go ahead with it, that’s entirely up to you.”

They asked us, Mr. Speaker, to try to resolve some of the differences, some of the problems, some of the areas which were not clear enough and we did that. We sat down with them and we have resolved, as far as we know, I would say 99 per cent of any material differences.

We have not by any means met them to the satisfaction of all the people concerned. I agree with the member for Oxford when he said there are people who are opposed to the bill. Why not? This is a democratic government and we recognize that people should express their opinions.

I have met with those who are against. I have met with those people and explained to them where they were wrong in their reasoning. The Leader of the Opposition is nodding his head; he knows I have met with them and he knows the position they put forward to me was not materially different from what had been discussed before, but they felt they had the right to stop what the majority of the people wanted to do. But a minority is not going to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about that majority? Is he going to ignore them? That’s ridiculous. He did not have a majority mandate to introduce this. He may have the power to do it but not on that basis.

Mr. Parrott: Certainly he has.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I repeat to you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition is going to sit and listen to me this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, I will listen to the minister. He got up about five times when I was speaking so he needn’t give me that stuff about being mannerly. He got up about five times.

Mr. Parrott: Right; that’s because the member was wrong about five times.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That was his first, so he has four more.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Get ready because we are going to spend some time on this. I wish the leader of the NDP were here, because he might want to get up the odd time, too.

Mr. Ferrier: He is listening in his office.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He will come around, I guess, in time.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, what we are going to do is put some facts on the table today in the House, in front of the representative for Oxford, and make sure the people recognize that Oxford has not had anything imposed upon it. It is something which the government enacted, as the Leader of the Opposition said, because the county council voted for it, because the city of Woodstock voted for it, because the separated town of Ingersoll voted for it.

Mr. Speaker, let someone in the opposition tell me, when we go into committee of the whole House, if that isn’t unanimous, what is?

We asked the three bodies, the governing bodies and we got it; it’s unanimous if ever anything was.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is making his coffin if he is going to sell that as a unanimous vote. We’ll see how the people of Oxford feel.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Does the member want to stand up? This will be the second time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, it’s all right, I am keeping count.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right. Mr. Speaker, we will deal with some of the points made first of all by the member for Brant.

It really is too bad. We know we see the demise of the federal Liberal government, thank goodness. We know we see that --

Mr. Bullbrook: Who’s writing the minister’s stuff? The member for Scarborough Centre or the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- but we see more particularly a continuance of the provincial Liberal Party going down and down when we have statements such as we had this morning.

Mr. Ferrier: I can agree with that.

Mr. Cassidy: For once we are almost in agreement with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to bring to the attention of the members of this House why the member for Brant said we should have a referendum.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I believe he did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Sure, he used the word. He said residents should be more consulted; they should have a referendum. I will check Hansard tomorrow and find out.

It’s my opinion that we elect people to make decisions. We have elected people in the county of Oxford, in the city and in the separated town and they have made a decision.

There is absolutely no way one can say this was a decision taken hastily. It was taken after due consideration by all people at the local level, with assistance which we gave them quite freely. Certainly it has resulted in what I think is not only a very important bill but is one which will be, I would say, something we will use in many other places of Ontario. Whether the opposition likes it or not we have --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what we are afraid of.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- many municipalities, many counties, many separated towns and many cities asking us right now --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the scary part of this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Middlesex, Perth.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, will you permit a question -- would you permit me one question? I haven’t joined in the debate but I want to ask the minister if he is telling the members of this House that he will put into being this type of county government where the people want it locally? Is he giving us an assurance that he will not impose it if there is not a unanimous request for it? That’s what I’m interested in.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ve said this all along, every place I’ve went. I’ve said we won’t impose it if you don’t want it. And I say to the hon. Member --

Mr. Bullbrook: So it has got to be a unanimous request of the people.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Does the member mean so that one kook can hold the whole thing up? Don’t be silly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It has got to be a majority vote, not imposed; unless the hon. member is suggesting that probably this government should delay everything because one municipality of 500 or 600 people doesn’t want to go ahead and do something. Is that what he’s saying?

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister says majority; he said unanimous, now it is majority.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I said in Oxford it was unanimous; in other areas it would be majority.

Mr. Bullbrook: In other words --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Bullbrook: He’s sitting down, what are you talking about, order? You know the orders; he’s the speaker, not you.

Do I understand the minister correctly, therefore, that if the city of London did not wish to have their government usurped by the county of Middlesex, they wouldn’t have to have it so usurped?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, I would suggest to the hon. member for Sarnia that we not engage in a debate. If he wishes to ask a question of the minister and he wishes to answer it, let’s keep it to that.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I suggest to you, most respectfully, that that’s exactly what I was doing. I got up and said I want to ask him another question. You keep listening to those fellows yapping over there no wonder you are --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member could have fooled the chair, I will listen more intently.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What the hon. member said I am not entirely sure, because there was a bit of noise. In any event, I am relating my remarks to this bill, and I said that I expect it will be used in other areas because we do have other counties asking for a restructuring study to determine whether or not they want a bill similar to this. That’s what I said.

Mr. Bullbrook: The government is never going to bring Sarnia into Lambton county, and don’t forget it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I don’t care whether Sarnia goes or doesn’t go. Sarnia will stay on the map, I guess.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: We don’t need any county council to tell us how to grow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister will continue.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to, Mr. Speaker, if the member for Sarnia is through.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am through.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): For the moment.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you. Now, Mr. Speaker, let’s get back to some of the facts, supposed facts, quoted by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the expenditures of regional government, although it is not related to this bill, not related in the least. This is not a regional bill, this is for restructured counties.

But I just want to say something to the hon. members who are here. I want to go back to what I said before whereby we now see another change, I believe, in what has been quoted in the past by the Leader of the Opposition. He was quoted in the Globe and Mail that in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton; the 1968 figures, $59.5 million; 1969 it was $81.3 million; a 36 per cent increase. On our figures it was $65.2 million in 1968; in 1969 it was $74.3 million; which is an increase of 14 pet cent. I contradicted the statements, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I contradicted his statements and he comes out again today with statements which are exactly the same.

He says, if I’ve got his figures right, 81 per cent higher for Ottawa-Carleton. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is in a very dangerous position where he takes figures out of context and doesn’t understand how to add up figures.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not at all, no. They are the minister’s own figures, his own figures.

Mr. Good: From 1968-1972 it was 80 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I also say to him that for Niagara there was $39 million in 1968, which increased to $56 million in 1969, an increase of 45 per cent. Where our figures were $43.9 million for 1968; and in 1969 it was $56.5 million; an increase of 29 per cent, which is a difference of 16 per cent.

Now how did the hon. Leader of the Opposition come forth today with figures of $43.9 million for Niagara when he couldn’t do it before, when he mentioned it was $39 million?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The whole point is the cost of this government, here it is up 28.4 per cent in the first year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When we relate our figures to Niagara, we have to take into account that all municipalities have had an increase in their levies without any doubt whatsoever.

There are comparable figures which I wish to bring to the attention of the members of this House. As far as Niagara is concerned, the municipal levies in the new cities have increased by 59.7 per cent, compared with 59.4 per cent for the cities in the remainder of the province. Levies in towns within the region of Niagara have increased by 52.5 per cent, against the average Ontario increase of 68.1 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The ministry gave them an extra $1 million for one year.

Mr. Good: Look at the extra $1 million.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: New townships in the Niagara region have encountered a modest increase of 24.6 per cent, whereas townships in the rest of the province have experienced an increase of 67.4 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t know how the minister can compare that, because the province is paying a large percentage of their costs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What the hon. Leader of the Opposition and members of the opposition in general haven’t really figured out is that there has been a rise in expenditures in all levels of government. We’ve seen it in the federal government and we’ve seen it here; we’ve seen it at all levels. They are not relating properly to what services are being obtained and maintained at the local level. That’s where they have to relate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister should talk to the taxpayers in Muskoka.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as Muskoka is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt that there are many properties in Muskoka that were not properly assessed in the first instance. It’s about time they were assessed and had to pay for the services they are now receiving and didn’t receive in the past.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Muskoka expenditures went up 75 per cent in one year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member talks about the regional municipality of York. The member, who is very well aware of the regional municipality of York, said there never was a better form of government and he stands behind the regional municipality of York. I think it’s about time, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister mean the member for York North?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Can I just ask a question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition? He talks about the increase in taxes in the region of York --

Mr. Ferrier: Hey, this isn’t question period. This is a debate.

Mr. W. Hodgson: There wasn’t one municipality at the local level that didn’t have a reduction in taxes in 1973.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. Since the member has asked me a question, let me put this to him. Does he know why they had the reduction? Because we paid the bills out of our Treasury; and I, as a farmer in Brant, had to pay. Why should I have to pay that? Because costs went up 51 per cent in one year in York.

An hon. member: Let the member put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Between 1970 and 1971 taxes went up 51 per cent, and the government had to come back here with special legislation for $1 million just to grease the member’s election -- for no other purpose than that we could have him here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One million dollars! The member may be worth it to his wife, but not to me.

Mr. Eaton: I thought one of the Liberal policies was to pay more of the costs out of the provincial Treasury.

An hon. member: Whatever happened to the 80 per cent for education?

Mr. W. Hodgson: Let the Leader of the Opposition send his speech up to the members in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s fine. We are going to have to buy back the member for Oxford, God help us.

An hon. member: We never sold him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s debatable, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll try. We’ll go on to another area, Waterloo. Right now we have a situation whereby the 1973 mill rates of every municipality in the Waterloo regional area were lower than in 1972 by an average of five per cent with the grants.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How about their costs?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, surely the Leader of the Opposition is not that unable to understand --

An hon. member: The government has had its day.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that costs are rising, regardless of what government is in office.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By 36 per cent in one year?

Mr. W. Hodgson: For extra services.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because of the uncontrolled inflationary spending of the federal government. That’s where the cost starts.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Boy, that’s pretty weak.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we’ll end that after July 8.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Up 36 per cent because of Pierre Trudeau? Is that it? Just because this government gave them regional government and imposed regional police?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to listen, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government spent more in the last six years than 100 years of federal government before it. Now try and tie that in. Try and figure that one out.

Mr. MacDonald: So did the Tory government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What the hell; how did this government end up with a bigger deficit than he has this year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have a $703-million deficit in Ontario; there’s a $400-million deficit for all of Canada.

An hon. member: They cooked the books.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I am wondering if the hon. members would return to the principle of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think we should, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: The Speaker is going to have to adjourn the House.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is having difficulty --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, some remarks were made in regard to whether or not the Treasurer, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, should be meeting with other municipalities, and that I have some embarrassment, that I am feeling humiliated. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all the members, that I consider it a deep honour to have been appointed parliamentary assistant in this government, and a deep honour to be Minister without Portfolio.

I also consider it a very deep honour to be associated with the hon. John White as Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. And I do not want doubts in anyone’s mind that when I go around speaking, I am speaking not only for myself, but for the Treasurer and for this government. And that is what is going to be the end of the opposition. And it is too bad, because they won’t recognize it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And they know it out there, too. They know it. Councillors know who the experts are.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe we will add weight to the issue. The Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer; that’s a nice combination.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is absolutely no way anyone can speak, as the Leader of the Opposition did, when he said we were downgrading local government. Downgrading local government? How, I ask? We have endeavoured at every turn to make sure that we have given more powers back to the local governments. We are, by this bill, providing more powers to be dealt with by the local governments. We are taking power away from Queen’s Park; we are making sure that the people have the financial resources and the capabilities to look after the needs of their people.

There just is no way that the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, can defend the statements he made today, I have heard him say it before, so I wasn’t surprised. I was somewhat surprised to hear the remarks of the leader of the NDP, the member for Scarborough West --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well they changed their decision since last year; that is why it is a surprise.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Scarborough West apparently was rather upset yesterday because he didn’t get a good reception, so he comes in here and starts to get all upset, saying we are unsensitive and make arbitrary decisions.

Mr. Cassidy: We had the best rally the NDP has ever held in Oxford.

Mr. MacDonald: With over 1,800 people.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, if there was an unsensitive party, a party which would be arbitrary, that is one right over there; and there is certainly not going to be that kind of a situation here.

Mr. Cassidy: After what the minister did to Metro last night, he can’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The NDP want to sit on the fence. They have had one or two of their members saying: “We wish to restructure. We don’t want to go along with the opposition.” They have also been saying: “Leave the governments as they are.” No, they don’t want that; but they don’t want to agree with the government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We want the changes to be at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They don’t want to agree with the government because they know the government is right. They are scared to agree with the government.

Mr. MacDonald: Come up with a financial solution to the situation and you’d avoid most of the difficulties.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Ottawa Centre came out with one of his usual spiels and said that the government can’t guarantee that life in the rural areas would be maintained. Well that depends on the people.

Obviously, it depends on the people whether they maintain the rural life or not.

Mr. Cassidy: It depends on the economic policies of this government; and it has been starving rural areas for decades.

Mr. Haggerty: Just take Nanticoke.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think as a city farmer the member is not one to judge.

Mr. Cassidy: People from rural areas are moving into my riding already.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He should talk to the farmers more, since he doesn’t know a darn thing about farming.

Mr. Cassidy: I have been talking to lots of farmers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All six of them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And he mentioned also that --

Mr. Cassidy: I have been endorsed by Farm and County. I have got that sign of approval now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He also mentioned that this bill “didn’t deal with any financial implications; it doesn’t mention anything about financing which will happen in the next few months, next few years.”

Well certainly it does. It is obvious that the leader of the NDP didn’t know either, because it is included in this bill whereby we provide our usual transitional grants, plus any other unconditional grants and property stabilization grants which may come forth from the government from time to time.

Mr. Cassidy: Four bucks a year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly this is in the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: And then drop the load on them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I wonder how anyone in their right mind would think we could tell what we should provide in the way of a grant next year when we haven’t got a government elected in Oxford yet. They don’t know what they are going to spend and they don’t know what their budgets are. That’s the way we determine how much our grants are going to be.

I fail to understand why this keeps coming up time and time again, Mr. Speaker, from the opposition members. They have failed to understand this point; and whether they understand it and don’t wish to admit it, I am not sure.

Mr. Eaton: They get ornery sometimes too.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I guess probably that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s local autonomy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One thing the hon. member for Ottawa Centre should understand is that when we do reduce local councils, we certainly do not have a duplication of services, duplication of buildings. We utilize, to the fullest extent, our planning services, our equipment and our administration services throughout the area. And to me, as the hon. member for Yorkview properly said, small municipalities are not viable. We can’t stay as we would have by the Baldwin Act in 1849. It’s just not possible to carry on a modem way of life with municipalities of 600 or 400 or 300.

Where do they get their tax base? They haven’t got it. They can’t provide for the needs of their people. Again, we have an NDP philosophy which doesn’t stand up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer all the members if I can. I know we’re going to committee because we have amendments which I’ll be making as related to the bill, and as specifically requested by the members of the elected councils in Oxford. But I want to relate my remarks to each member here today in case they’re not here later on in committee of the whole House.

The hon. member for Essex South asked me, I believe, can a municipality be added to the study when it’s outside the boundaries of the county. Am I correct?

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Correct.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, certainly the municipality can be included in the study. A study will determine whether the boundaries should remain the same or retract or expand. Then it’s up to the local people to decide whether they want to go ahead with the study or not; whether they want to expand their boundaries or retract them.

I was delighted to hear the hon. member also say that he agreed with the principle which we have, as a government, brought forth, whereby we no longer separate the counties from the cities and the towns. I was mayor of a separated town and I believe full well there is just no way that we can operate in the future without each municipality being within a system of government. We cannot carry on with a separated town and/or a city in a county system without planning together and sharing our resources, our assessments, throughout the whole area.

Mr. Haggerty: All you need to do is remove that from the Municipal Act; that would solve your problem of separation of towns.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the hon. member mentioned also about how reserves and debt financing were carried out. Well, on the reserves that each municipality has credited to that municipality -- it goes to the upper tier to begin with, the county level, but it is related back, directly back, to the municipality that had that reserve for the specific reason it was set up. The debt financing is also at the county level, but it is related back, area charged, to the area that incurred that debt. It is not paid by some other area outside. Those who incurred the debt pay for it, and those who had a reserve receive the credit.

There was a point about the public utilities commissions. They are being dissolved as far as water is concerned. As far as hydro is concerned they are carried on; the hydro-electric commissions are carried on. One other hon. member brought this up, too. This is a matter which maybe should have been resolved before this, but hasn’t been and I’m not sure when it will be. But in any event we are proceeding with the public utilities commission being a part of councils when they are restructured.

My next remarks would have been related to the hon. member for Scarborough West, the leader of the NDP, but I won’t say anything as he is not here at this time. I will reserve them till later.

I commend the hon. member for Oxford for his very real participation in this whole exercise. He has been with his people, he knows what his people want. He has worked to resolve any outstanding issues. He has come to myself and he has come to the Treasurer. He has gone to the warden and he has gone to the mayor and he has done everything possible to talk to his people and to resolve any issues which may not have been of too great importance, but were certainly of importance to his people and to himself. I say to him that I give him full credit for what he has done.

If we were to receive the co-operation of other members in each area, I think the people of this province would gain a great deal.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s impressive. I didn’t think he would say that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Waterloo North spoke about the matter of the warden. He doesn’t agree on the method of selection.

Mr. Cassidy: It just won’t work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Cassidy: It won’t work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The method that has been incorporated in this bill has been specifically requested by the local people and we are willing to go along with that. The bill, as it is now, states a membership of 21. However, I have an amendment which will make it 20. The warden will still retain his seat at the local level, whatever municipality he is in charge of and --

Mr. Cassidy: Fine, that will work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- he will also have a vote as a warden in case of a tie. I think it will work. The member for Ottawa Centre agrees.

Mr. Cassidy: But the way you had it in the bill, it wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, right. The member for Waterloo North again mentioned that it is one tier only. Certainly it’s not one tier. It’s two tier with very specific matters to be looked after by the local area municipalities. And I think it’s been said before today as to what they will be doing. If they do not have more to do, they’ll have as much as they did before, and certainly they’ll have much larger areas to look after. So I would say to the member for Waterloo North that there is just no justification for him to say, or any other member, that this is one tier only. That is two-tiered government with a real job to be done by those at the local level.

Mr. Bullbrook: Has Woodstock got a police force now?

An hon. member: Has the member never been down there?

Mr. Bullbrook: Does it have a police force?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does it have a planning department now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Will it have a planning department after?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’ll have a county planning board. We might go into that in the committee of the whole House if the member for Sarnia can stay around. One of the matters I want to bring out for the member for Waterloo North -- if I could again -- is, he is absolutely incorrect --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in his statement as to how the debentures would be handled in regard to water and sewer facilities and I say once again that the debts will not be shared across the entire area. They will be related to those who incurred the debts.

Mr. Deacon: I hope you have more success in getting services than we have had in York.

Mr. Parrott: They are a little smarter down there.

Mr. Eaton: Have you been blocking them up there or something?

Mr. Parrott: Let the member worry about York, I will worry about Oxford.

Mr. Henderson: He has got nothing to worry about in York.

Mr. Deacon: We sure do.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when I look through the rest of the remarks here and I think they have been pretty repetitious --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- so I don’t think I’ll deal with them; we have the member for Yorkview here, we have the member for York Centre, we have the member for Wentworth. I don’t believe there is anything to be added except to say to the member for Wentworth --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which he can read in Hansard that the Treasurer has --

Mr. Deacon: It is a disaster.

Mr. Cassidy: He is in committee with the Speaker’s estimates.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- not, nor has any member of this government, said that we have miscalculated or have acted in a wrong fashion in regard to regional governments. I believe that was the statement he made, that we had made miscalculations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about Huron?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He has said that we have not taken into account what happens after the transition of grants are finished. Certainly we have taken that into consideration --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and we know that we will act when that time comes, but only when that time comes will we know what the situation is. And he mentioned that we had said there’d be no further restructuring. Well, Mr. Speaker, there will be restructuring if the people want it, whether the opposition parties want it or not.

Mr. Deacon: How do you decide?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Engineer, engineer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the people want it there’ll be restructuring. This government is not going to sit still because the opposition parties want to do nothing. We are going to proceed as we have in the past, and we are going to provide good --

Mr. Deacon: We don’t. We have told the minister what we want him to do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We want the changes to come here faster.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- leadership for the people, we are going to be in government for maybe the next 30 years and they are going to be in the opposition for the next 30 years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks on that cheerful note. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 95.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 95, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Auld Bales Beckett Belanger Bernier Brunelle Downer Drea Eaton Evans Gilbertson Handleman Havrot Henderson Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Kerr Lane Lawrence Leluk MacBeth McIlveen McNeil Meen Miller Morningstar Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Potter Reilly Root Rowe Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stewart Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Wells White Winkler Wiseman Yaremko -- 51.

Bounsall Braithwaite Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Deacon Deans Dukszta Edighoffer Ferrier Germa Gisborn Good Haggerty Laughren Lawlor MacDonald Martel Newman (Windsor- Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Reid Renwick Riddell Ruston Singer Smith (Nipissing) Spence Worton Young - 32.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 51, the “nays” are 32.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Committee of the whole House.

MILK ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the concept of this bill which, in fact, gives the power to impose fines on milk producers attempting to ship milk of lower quality than their contract calls for.

The minister is aware of previous procedures where standards are established quite rigidly and subject to inspection and ever-increasing quality control of real stringency. There have been cases that I have not personally dealt with but which milk producers have been subjected to, where a whole vat of milk has had to be dumped down the drain because of an indication that the temperature wasn’t right or that there was some inclusion of foreign material and thus the milk was unacceptable.

I have always felt that surely that was a substantial enough control measure, but to impose a fine seems to me that you are actually enabling a producer to ship milk of a lower quality as long as he has the money in the bank to pay the fines involved. The indications are the milk would not be wasted but accepted for other purposes where the quality of the milk would not interfere with its use. I wanted on second reading to voice my opinion that the concept of allowing milk of low quality to go on the market, although it might be subject to a fine, is a new one and one in which I can tell the whole House is interested.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member for York South is next.

Mr. MacDonald: I have not much more to add except that in terms of principle obviously we want to have adequate standards for milk which is marketed. I am told in discussions with members or staff people at the Ontario Milk Marketing Board there have been problems in the past because of the fact the board couldn’t cope effectively with situations involving farmers who weren’t living up to those standards. Now we have penalties.

In speaking to the second reading of this bill, I would be very interested to get the minister’s version of why it is necessary at this stage to bring in the proposition of penalties. As a general principle, I repeat, it seems to me we want to have milk of adequate standards on the market. If for some reason or other one producer refuses to live up to a contract to produce milk of adequate standard, it seems to me there should be some effective kind of control of that situation, whether by penalty or by cutting the person off or some other third alternative which doesn’t occur to me for the moment.

What I am really soliciting from the minister is his explanation as to why we feel it is necessary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to reinforce further the statements made by my leader in opposition to the principle in this bill. To my mind, it’s absolutely incomprehensible that we should fine suppliers of any product who are supplying a product that’s below standard: Surely it’s enough to cut off the supply as we now are doing.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The member doesn’t care who has to drink it, does he?

Mr. Patterson: That is the whole point.

Mr. Deacon: As the member for Scarborough Centre should know, we do have methods of control -- every time a shipment is picked up, samples can be taken and we can know what’s in that milk and we can know where the problem is. For us to fine people because their milk is below standard is absolutely intolerable.

In some cases the milk will fall below standard because of a temporary condition in the farmer’s well which can be beyond the control of the farmer. To think that at a time when we are having difficulty maintaining milk shipments, when we have people leaving the industry because of the problems they face in the milk industry, we now start to threaten them with fines, to my mind it is inexcusable.

Does the minister know of any other situation where producers or manufacturers of goods are fined for not meeting a standard? I don’t know of one. I can see they would suffer penalties because their customers don’t buy and that is what happens here. To impose fines is something we do not support and I wanted to express further my opposition to the principles in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to participate in the bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that at the present time there is little alternative but to cut the shipper off and have him dump his milk. Surely this bill makes much more eminent common sense? I don’t think the member for York Centre is so naive, so unknowledgeable about the dairy industry today that he would say a farmer who happened to have, say, excess water in his milk should be forced to dump that milk in a day when we need milk, when we are doing our best to get more milk produced?

There is no fine involved here. The difference between a fine and a penalty is a fine is levied by a court; a penalty is levied by the Milk Marketing Board based on the test made of that individual producer’s milk. There is no court in it; that’s all there is to it. That’s not a fine, it is simply a quality penalty.

Surely it makes much more common sense to take this approach than it does to take the approach that has been taken since the Milk Marketing Board Act was set up -- where you say to a farmer: “There’s been something wrong with your milk” -- they do a test twice a month on the milk -- “We found in the last test there was something wrong with your milk; now because that happened you are going to have to dump that tank of milk.” It might be perfectly good milk with not a thing wrong with it. That to me doesn’t make common sense in a day when we are trying to protect the environment, and I suppose there is no worse offender against the environment than dumped milk.

What we are saying here is: Let the Milk Marketing Board, which is the sole purchaser, which is the sole seller of milk in the Province of Ontario, say to those who do business with it, either in selling to it or buying from it: “If a processor has purchased a vat of milk that has gone wrong, there will now be a fund to which these penalties will be contributed.”

Surely that kind of a loss shouldn’t be assessed against the farmers of Ontario who are producing high-quality milk day after day after day. There could be some person who offends against that, perhaps innocently, maybe he had to go away or something and somebody else milked the cows that night who didn’t know how to do it right and a problem develops.

I feel that this is very progressive legislation that has been worked out with the Milk Marketing Board, with the dairy processors’ council, with the dairy branch of our ministry, and with the milk commission. We think that it is forward-looking legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 103.

Those in favour of Bill 103, please say “aye.”

Those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

MARKETING OF WOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 93, An Act respecting the Marketing of Wool.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill as outlined is to provide for the payment of licence fees by producers of wool, and the expenditures of such fees is to advance production of sheep and wool and the marketing of wool. Actually the bill is not too dissimilar in nature to Bill 92, An Act respecting Fruits and Vegetables Produce-for-Processing, and Bill 91, An Act to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act,

We had thought that perhaps all three bills might have been debated at the one time. But we realize, of course, that the minister did have a captive audience for Bill 91, which we did oppose. I might say that we are not going to oppose Bill 93 because we realize that it is enabling legislation. But we do abhor the policy of the government to implement programmes without the request of a majority of the producers who are going to be affected by these programmes.

This bill and Bill 92 probably will be implemented. And, in many cases, the majority of the producers will not have any knowledge of the bill or its contents, and will not have been given any information. The only way they will find out what has been going on is to take a look at their cheque when they sell their produce, to find that a certain amount of money has been deducted and will be sent to the producers’ organization.

We are not trying to imply that there is not a need for farm organizations. And we are not trying to imply that there is not a need for promotion of the product. But surely the producers should be informed that such a programme is going to come into effect, and they should be allowed to have some input before such programmes are implemented.

With Bill 93 there is going to be a deduction made on the sales of wool. And yet we all know full well that many of the sheep producers are not necessarily raising flocks and making some income from wool. We are going to promote both sheep and wool products; we are actually going to promote lamb in this case, I would trust. We have many producers who buy western lamb, bring it down into Ontario, feed that lamb, and sell it, and thereby they are not required to pay towards the promotion of this product. It would appear to me that the producers who are going to pay the lion’s share of any promotion are those who have the ewe flocks and actually make some income from the sale of the wool.

It would seem more reasonable to me to have a checkoff programme on the sale of lamb and mutton similar to that on beef cattle than it would be to tax those who are producing wool. Yet we are endeavouring to promote the sale of lamb, if I understand the programme, according to this bill. In other words, it indicates we are promoting sheep and wool products yet the man who is buying the western lamb and selling lamb or mutton is not going to be paying his part in promoting these various products. This is one of the objections I would have to this particular bill.

As I indicated before, we are not going to oppose the bill because we realize it is enabling legislation. We hope the producers will be given some information before they wake up some morning and find they have had a deduction made from their income. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my starting point with this bill, as was the case with Bill 91, Bill 92 and the one we have just dealt with, is the general principle that a farm organization or any organization of primary producers and workers is entitled to a degree of financial security. I think one of the crippling things in the past has been that laws have been passed permitting the bringing together of such organizations but there has been a deliberate denial of the development of a financial capacity even when the organizations were going to be asked to collectively accumulate that financial capacity.

In principle, I am in favour of the sort of objective that any group of producers, whether it is on the farm front, or any group of workers, whether it is on the industrial front is entitled to be able to get some degree of financial security for its collective action.

Having said that, however, my concern is the extent to which the rank and file are part and parcel of this whole move. In effect, what the minister is doing is giving the organization, which sometimes falls into the hands of a group -- through the neglect of the rank and file or through the vigorous action of those who happen to be in the leadership role -- they run it and to too great an extent the rank and file membership doesn’t have a say.

I think the second principle one has to be very clear on is whether or not the rank and file are going to have a full opportunity to express their views before they give authorization for a tax on themselves -- a levy on themselves -- whether it is by way of a licence or whether it is by way of a charge on the product when it is taken to the market.

What I am a little curious about in this instance is to what extent has this been discussed among sheep and wool producers in the Province of Ontario? If I may just digress for a moment, the thing that puzzles me about Bill 92, which I presume we are going to come to next, is that there are thousands of farmers across the Province of Ontario who have never heard of it. The first they heard of it was when the farm broadcast a few days ago indicated these bills had been introduced and they were going to be debated.

I know the minister’s reaction will be “It’s only enabling legislation.” His second reaction will be that the bill includes the right for the primary producer, the member, to seek a refund of that licence fee if he doesn’t feel he wants to share in this collective action.

As we have already pointed out in the instance of the Ontario Beef Improvement Association because often the marketing is done in small lots and it amounts to a small amount of money, farmers haven’t bothered to reclaim. The result is that by default a lot of money remained with the central organizations and farmers were objecting to it in principle.

It may well be that in this case there isn’t as great a problem because it’s a licence fee. If you don’t want to go along with the programme you’re making application only once; you don’t have to apply a half a dozen times during the course of a year, as I understand it.

So, in general principle I’m inclined to be in favour of this bill. But by my hesitancy my qualification is to seek from the minister now and to make certain in the future that the implementation of the bill is going to be done after some involvement of the rank and file rather than the minister here, through legislation giving the power to a group at the top in an organization, in effect, to run the organization in a pretty authoritarian way which excludes rank and file participation. I would appreciate very much if the minister would indicate to what extent there has been a request from the membership across the board, so to speak, in this commodity group.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to reply. Frankly, I think the member for Huron has touched on a valid point in the exemption of the western lamb feeder. It does indeed exempt him unless of course he happens to shear the lambs before they’re shipped. In that event he’s contributing fairly substantially to the fund, because there are large numbers usually involved in those lamb feeding operations.

On the other hand, there has been a request from the Sheep Producers Association. About a year ago the purebred sheep breeders and the commercial lamb producers of Ontario got together and established what is known as the Ontario Sheep Producers Association. I received a letter from the executive asking if they could meet with us. Unfortunately, I couldn’t meet them on the day that we set the particular appointment, but my parliamentary assistant was there. Weren’t you at that one? Then my executive assistant, the deputy and the assistant deputy minister in charge of marketing were there. They discussed with them all the various points that were raised. I received a complete report of the meeting and they asked that this kind of a levy be established so that they would have a means of financing their own organization. It seemed to make common sense to us.

There might be some validity in saying: “Well, it should be on the lamb carcass or the lamb itself when it’s sold. “But how in the world would you ever implement collection, because of the number of people who go out and buy lambs direct from the producer and slaughter them themselves?

There are virtually only three major wool-buyers in Ontario and virtually all the wool produced in Ontario is marketed through those three outlets. So it would seem that that was a very easy way to collect the funds and this is what the sheep producers asked for.

As far as involving the rank and file membership of the Sheep Producers Association, they had their annual field day about two weeks ago and I spoke to them at that time and told them that the bill had been introduced for first reading on the request of the executive. I discussed it with them and told them what it would do and all about it and I’ve had no word of criticism from anyone about that. That doesn’t suggest that every sheep producer in the province knows about it. Frankly, I don’t know how one would go about that. But I think we have to take the word of the elected executive people who are responsible purebred sheep breeders and commercial sheep breeders with a sizable stake in the industry themselves.

It just seemed to me that, as my friend said I would say, it is enabling legislation. It is a voluntary checkoff inasmuch as a person can apply and get it refunded to him, so I simply say that this is an opportunity for them to provide their own financing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 93. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PRODUCE-FOR-PROCESSING ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves second reading of Bill 92, An Act respecting Fruits and Vegetables Produce-for-Processing.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex South.

Mr. Paterson: In addressing myself to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I might state that the bill was, I believe, introduced last Thursday and I was able to procure a printed copy of the bill when it was tabled with us on that occasion. I took it back to circulate among the various groups of my own constituency -- some- thing that really bothers me as a legislator is that we don’t have a week or two on all these bills to take them back to our ridings to circulate them among the interested people, to get a consensus.

On this occasion, I did get a report first thing Monday morning. I had said I wanted to have opinions on this before I came back to Toronto as I am sure it was going to be debated last week. The report that I got back was that this was a good bill, that this matter had been requested by the executive of the OFVGA and I should support it.

Subsequent phone calls after that time were of the opposite opinion. During the almost 11 years that I have been a member I have attempted to go down to the OFVGA conventions, as I used to be somewhat allied with the fruit and vegetable industry in my own constituency. Knowing most of the personages there and the principles that they were debating in their conventions, I did take an interest in this. Last year I missed this and I don’t know whether or not this was a resolution that was passed at the OFVGA annual meeting or whether it was an executive decision.

I began getting telephone calls on Monday as the grassroots farmers learned of this checkoff. They were opposed to this because they apparently didn’t know anything about it. I don’t know whether this is a breakdown in communications from the OFVGA through their various associations or not. Last Monday evening, surprisingly to me, the Essex County Vegetable Growers Association held a meeting -- and I know the minister and his parliamentary assistant were down there several weeks ago at their annual meeting and I don’t know whether this matter came up at that time or not. I wasn’t present at that particular banquet. What surprised me was the comment of one of the spokesmen for that group -- and I quote the headline in the Windsor Star: “Growers Protest Tactics on Proposed Legislation” and I quote: “The directors of the local organization were protesting the tactics used by the association and the provincial government because they didn’t inform growers across the province about details of the bill.”

And surprisingly enough the objection came from Tom Robson, our good friend in the business, and a man who has been on the negotiating teams for the canned crop people for many, many years. He and many other people spend weeks down here in the winter months acting on behalf of various vegetable growers in our area in negotiations with the canning industry. So I think there has been a real breakdown in communications in relation to this bill.

The opposition to this bill was based on the lack of information. Another area of concern was that these funds were going to go to the OFVGA instead of a marketing group. Now here again there is a lot of confusion, in my mind at least.

I have got a great deal of respect for OFVGA, but there are county vegetable growers’ associations, the negotiating groups, that are financed.

I realize that the fresh vegetable growers’ associations get revenue from the Farm Products Containers Act, so they are funded. And I am sure the local groups must sponsor the people going down for the negotiations at Hamilton or Toronto or wherever the negotiations take place. I am not exactly sure how they are funded in this, but I would assume that the funds going to be derived by this bill are, in fact, going to be used partially for that purpose as well as the promotion of canned or frozen produce of our Ontario farms.

There is one problem I would like to raise in relation to this. No one can sell to a processor without having a licence, and I just wonder what the facility of getting a licence will be, saying that someone who is strictly in the fresh vegetable or fruit area is all of a sudden confronted with no market and the local processor has capacity to take the fruits or vegetables if it can get quick consent to this in order that that produce may be used up in the processing business rather than spoiled.

This Monday, on the way into Toronto, I was listening to a CBC broadcast and I was made aware that Mr. Armstrong -- I believe it was; he is spokesman for the OFVGA -- indicated the association will not proceed with this enabling legislation until after a vote is taken at the OFVGA meeting next January. This somewhat takes the teeth out of the opposition to the particular bill.

I assume this agreement to hold this vote at this time is through section 4 of the bill which indicates the association must be of the opinion that the majority of the members of the association are in favour of it before it would proceed.

The other matter which has been drawn to my attention is that although the legislation will allow a 3/10th of one per cent deduction in the initial stages only 1/10th of one per cent is going to be deducted. Possibly the minister could confirm this.

Basically, I certainly oppose the method of the introduction of this particular bill, the lack of foreknowledge. I realize that we as legislators are supposed to lead and possibly bring in enabling legislation in which local growers’ associations and groups can participate. Possibly this is where the battle really should’ take place. Those organizations or groups which are opposed to this particular procedure, the deductions and so forth, should come forward and make their presentations to the farmers in the area during the intervening months, appear before the OFVGA and settle it on the floor among their own grower groups. At that point, if a decision is made for it, fine; if it is against enabling legislation, it will not in any way affect them. Those are my thoughts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, once again I start from the same point -- here is an organization which is in desperate need of a greater degree of financial security to be able to do the job. In the instance of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association it seems to me the minister has added complications. lit is one thing to talk about wool producers and sheep producers; that is a relatively small, contained group. In the instance of the OFVGA there is a federation which involves a multiplicity of commodity groups in the fruit and vegetable field. They have had very great difficulty in devising techniques, other than I suppose straight membership, which would be a duplicate of the membership of the OFA or other organizations of which they are a part.

They have attempted to solve that problem on the one hand by a procedure we’ve debated considerably in the last year or so in this House. That is, by an arrangement, authorized under regulations from this government, with the manufacturers of containers for the marketing of fruit and vegetables which went directly to the retail market. I think that’s a rather unhappy kind of solution to a difficult problem.

I’m not denying that the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association has to find some technique that is a relatively simple one to raise the moneys for its activities. It seems to me that it is extraordinary -- in fact, I think it may be unique -- that the government permits them to enter into an agreement with the manufacturers of the containers which are required. The container companies collect one per cent of the sale and deliver it to the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. That kind of checkoff is really a strange one.

Incidentally, it’s invidious for another reason. I have brought down for the minister’s edification, although I suspect it was not necessary, one of the many packages put out by Oakville Wood Specialties Ltd. of Oakville, Ont. There is a notice on it which says:

“Anyone using this container for other than the described contents and packer shown thereon is liable to prosecution under the marketing regulations of the Ontario Farm Products Grades and Sales Act.”

What that really means is if one uses it a second time one is going to run afoul of the law, because this --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, no. That has to do with the name of the producer and the contents.

Mr. MacDonald: A number of things, including that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s really not it.

Mr. MacDonald: That is the reason it was put on there in the first instance because if it was used a second time it was in violation of the regulations. We got into the old problem which we thrashed out and which the minister resolved by changing the regulations a few weeks ago, indicating one didn’t have to use new containers each time as long as the container was wholesome.

The invidious possibilities in this were rather interestingly illustrated when I discovered last year on inquiring among the people in the Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association that one of their bodies, which happened to be the Metro Toronto area group, was actually collecting two cents or two per cent from one of the manufacturing companies. This opens the door to unscrupulous kinds of competition between the companies, and I express again my unhappiness about this as a way of raising money for any group, even though that group is deserving of having money to do its business.

However, what the minister has now moved to do is to provide a means for expanded funds for the operation of this body from the produce which is sold to processors. I don’t know what proportion went directly to the retail market and had to be packaged or had to be put in containers of this nature, and what percentage went to the processors. I suspect a much larger percentage is going to the processors. This bill is going to give the power to license, with the right for the primary producer to seek a refund if he doesn’t want to pay that. Therefore, it conforms to some degree with what I think are general guidelines for the financing of farm organizations.

However, I want to reiterate the general point made by the hon. member for Essex South. I am, quite frankly, a little bit puzzled that nobody in the rank and file, or nobody in many of the constituent groups which make up the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, beyond the very top level, seems to be aware of this legislation. If I may pick up a point the hon. member has made, if Tom Robson didn’t know about it in his protesting, clearly people who are pretty close to the throne weren’t being involved in what was going on.

It seems to me there is double necessity for an involvement of the people and a full informing of the people and the members so they will have an opportunity to express their views in advance of this enabling legislation being put into effect. That’s stage 1. If it’s going to be done, as was indicated in the farm broadcast, by a vote at the next annual meeting of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, at least that’s one approach that can be made.

Secondly, for those who may find themselves in the minority of the vote we’re going through, they’re going to have the right to seek a refund. But it does place -- and I want to say this not so much to the minister, as it does place on some of the local groups -- I was very fascinated, talking to farmers -- if I may digress here, Mr. Speaker, I have never had as many telephone calls about a group of bills in my 20 years in the Ontario Legislature as I have had about this.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not even on the dog bill?

Mr. MacDonald: I said from farmers, I think on that I would say not even on the dog and cat bill.

In the course of talking to some of those, I was very interested to discover that in one county -- and I’ll leave it unnamed for the moment -- there was a unanimous vote, when they chose their delegates, to oppose reaffirmation of the OFVGA’s support for the container approach which was dealt with last January. The minister is thoroughly familiar with this. In spite of the unanimous vote by all the vegetable growers in that particular county, when they got down to the annual meeting the man who happened to speak on their behalf was easily argued out of his position. Their unanimous vote got washed out and wasn’t expressed on the floor at all.

All I am going to say is the democratic process requires a bit more vigour than that. If any county, through the local commodity groups of the vegetable growers association, comes to a decision that it is opposed it seems to me there is an obligation on its members to take the expression of that opposition and to present it with the necessary degree of vigour rather than letting it get washed out by one spokesman who doesn’t present their views very vigorously.

In short, I share with the hon. member for Essex South some grave concern about the lack of communication with regard to this legislation. I hope the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association is going to do a doubly good job in the months ahead to communicate this not only to the commodity groups which come under its umbrella, so to speak, but to the membership of those groups so they will be led into it with some enthusiasm if they are in support of this rather than feeling they have been trapped and have had something snuck in on them when they weren’t watching.

In principle I find it difficult not to support this bill. I have some misgivings about the way it has been handled, whether that is the fault of the government or whether it is the fault of the associations involved, I am not at this point in a position to say.

Mr. Speaker: Do other members wish to enter this debate? I am sure the hon. minister will want to respond when we resume at 8.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.