The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, among our visitors today there is a group of students taking a special summer course on international politics. They are from various parts of the city of Toronto and they are here today from North Toronto Collegiate along with their instructor, Mr. Prociw. I know that you and other members of this group would like to welcome them here.

Mr. Speaker: Before statements by the ministry today, I would like to inform the House that Mr. Speaker Rowe has had misfortune in his family again. He has lost a brother in an airplane accident and is unable to attend the session today. I am sure each and every one of us would like to express to him our deep sorrow and regret at the many fatalities that have happened in his family in the last two or three weeks.

Statements by the ministry.

Hon. W. C. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, before making a statement I would just like to express through you, sir, to Mr. Speaker Rowe the regrets of the members. As you say, this is the third very sad occasion for our Speaker. I am sure that our thoughts are very much with him at this moment.

ENERGY PRICES

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers’ conference on April 19 of this year, I pointed out as seriously as I was able that energy policy, of which energy pricing is a most crucial component, must be designed within the framework of a national policy that serves short-term as well as long-term interests of all Canadians.

There is little disagreement as to Canada’s policy needs. Inflation is severe and dangerous. The ranks of the unemployed are swelling and employment opportunities are not expanding at an acceptable rate. Costs everywhere are continuing to escalate. Canada’s need is for policy that addresses these problems.

Given the perilous and uncertain economic environment, Ontario has vigorously opposed any increase in the prices of crude oil and natural gas at this time. At the first ministers’ conference I underlined that the national priority must be the restoration of our faltering economy. I agreed that once that accomplishment is clearly behind us we might appropriately consider adjustments in natural gas and crude oil prices.

Why was it necessary for the price of crude oil to go up $1.50 a barrel wellhead as of July 1? Why is it necessary for the price of natural gas to be jumped by 43 cents as of Nov. 1? Why must the government of Canada impose a tax which extracts from the pockets of Canadians 10 additional cents for every gallon of gasoline that they purchase?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Why must Hydro go up 30 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There can be no mistake about one thing. These increases are not necessary to achieve the funds needed to subsidize oil consumers in the eastern part of this nation. The increase in the revenues accruing to the government of Canada as a direct consequence of the 10 cents a gallon revenue tax on gasoline, the escalation by $1.50 a barrel of the price of crude oil and the 43 cents per thousand cubic feet increase in the price of natural gas will exceed by two or three times the revenue required to cover the difference between the compensation payments to the eastern provinces and the revenues from the export subsidy levied by the government of Canada on oil exports.

There is no reason for these taxes, other than the propensity of the government of Canada to consume money.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier must understand that propensity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Increases in the price of crude oil and natural gas are simply taxes. They are different only in form and incidence from the 10 cents a gallon excise tax placed directly. The price of petroleum products is now a function of the need for additional revenues by government.

The fact that much of this revenue goes to the producing provinces, both of them, in the form of royalties does nothing to alter the fact that a federal initiative in petroleum prices is exercised to fatten federal coffers. Crude oil and natural gas in Canada are no longer managed in the economic interests of the nation. They have been converted into a happy hunting ground for the federal government.

The taxes on gasoline and other energy sources were not the only irrational element in this supporting document.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The budget speech of June 23 was replete with fatuosities.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The federal Liberals are going to fracture the party.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member doesn’t know what that means.

Mr. Lewis: We know what it means.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, while the Premier is making a statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said he was acquiescing with reluctance.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sarnia come to order?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Yes; will you make him come to order too?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Will you come to order, please?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Since when did the Speaker stop the interjections?

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is probably moving to a substantial initiative in this statement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sarnia come to order?

Mr. Bullbrook: I am in order in my seat right here.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but don’t interfere when there is a ministerial statement, please.

Mr. Sargent: Why is the Premier trying to bring us to our knees?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He thinks we should be on our knees.

Mr. Lewis: He is skewering the Liberals and maybe even the NDP. We have a right to interject.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are sure skewering them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Get to the point. What is the Premier going to do about it?

Mr. Sargent: He has a good horse. Why doesn’t he ride it for a while?

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Just wait.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Lip service was paid to rolling back governmental costs. The Minister of Finance boasted of his success in squeezing the $1 billion out of government of Canada expenditures. What is the fact? The fact is that on a national accounts basis, expenditures this year will be 16.8 per cent higher than actual expenditures last year.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Almost as bad as Ontario’s.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Finance talked about economizing in government salary budgets.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the government’s $2-billion deficit?

Hon. Mr. Davis: How? By tolerating a rate of increase in the public service of 3.1 per cent in the budget year. At a time of unemployment and inflation the government of Canada has brought in a tax-raising inflationary budget that will reduce the growth of jobs in Canada and that will bear with, particular severity on the people of this province.

Mr. Bullbrook: What about the $2-billion deficit here?

Mr. Sargent: Well, they are not bankrupt.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a budget that will wash over the prudent and relevant budgets of several of the provinces, including Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a budget that is inappropriate to the circumstances of Canada.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Premier’s not talking about this Treasurer’s fiasco, is he?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a budget which flies vigorously in the face of the national interest.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This government is behind by $1.7 billion. How hypocritical can they get?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In a number of its elements it also flies in the face of acknowledged facts.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is this a political speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It asserts a billion dollar cut in federal spending. It asserts restriction of salary budgets in the federal public service. Neither assertion bears scrutiny.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier run for the federal leadership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minister amended known facts to fit the fictions of the federal government when he asserted:

“We are fully conscious of the short-term adverse effects of a sharp increase in the domestic price of oil and natural gas. We are, however, faced with a growing dependence on imported oil. We have to recognize the long-term need to develop new sources of supply in Canada and to promote greater economies in the consumption of these scarce resources.”

What is the fact, Mr. Speaker? The fact is that the government of Canada has converted the growing revenues from higher crude oil and natural gas pricing to its own use. It is acknowledged by anyone who has examined the facts that increasing prices does not create incentives which result in the production of additional supplies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier said that last week.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It merely raises the tax and royalty take. I saw what the Leader of the Opposition said last week --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. I’ll say it again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and was that ever full of fatuosities; I haven’t seen a speech anything like it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s a great leader.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A good negotiator. He bowed and scraped a year ago; now he’s making a grandstand play.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The reference to conservation, in this context, is demagogic. Of course we all favour energy conservation but we don’t favour it at the price of further inflation and the further erosion of potential jobs in a time of inflation and unemployment.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The reasons given for the oil and gas price increases do not stand up to scrutiny.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is just running through it again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, we have no veto over --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let him tell us what he is going to do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I know it embarrasses the Leader of the Opposition to no end because he made the fundamental error of supporting that budget.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have no veto over federal government tax policy; no matter how inappropriate that policy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is going to let them apply a tax here, is he.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a sad day when the government of the people of this province must devote its efforts to protect the consuming public in Ontario --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The Tories never have before.

Mr. Martel: They have never protected the consuming public.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, if members agree when I’ve finished this paragraph, I will be delighted. Let me state it again.

It is a sad day when the government of the people of this province must devote its efforts to protecting the consuming public in Ontario from the government of Canada’s voracious appetites for revenue. Applaud that. Go ahead.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t they applaud that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where’s the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt)?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Go ahead, it reads well. Go on. More, more.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that the end?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Downsview, he will not have heard the end of this budget from Ottawa for several months.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s a sad, sad day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that day dawned on June 23. Our options are constitutionally limited but we will vigorously utilize those we have.

Today the government proposes to introduce an Act to be known as the Gasoline and Fuel oil Price Freeze Act, 1975.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Effective June 23?

Mr. Lewis: The Premier knows what that is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Relax.

Mr. Lewis: Does he know what that is? That’s price control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which the member opposes.

Mr. Lewis: He, the greatest Tory of them all, for price control.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All over this province the leader of the NDP was opposing it.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t begrudge it; he is quite a fellow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the bill imposes a temporary freeze on refined petroleum products sold in this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Until when?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The price fixed will be that prevailing on June 23, subject only to the unavoidable increase due exclusively to the government of Canada’s tax of 10 cents a gallon, so enthusiastically endorsed by the Liberal Party of the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The freeze, Mr. Speaker, will be for 90 days beginning at midnight tonight --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- subject to limited ex tension --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- subject to limited extensions by the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the assembly is recessed or not in session.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is the government leaving the 10 cents on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This freeze, Mr. Speaker, will ensure that there is no double-ticketing by the oil companies. The consumers of Ontario will not have to pay the five cents a gallon for gasoline or heating oil that will result from the increase of $1.50 a barrel for crude oil --

Mr. Deans: The Premier really is a protector of the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- while any of the inventory of oil purchased at the pre-July 1 price of $6.50 remains.

Mr. Deans: Phoney.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the principals of petroleum companies that merchandise petroleum products in Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): This is the deal the Premier made with them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they didn’t. They have explained their problems with respect to cash flow, that the replacement of inventory will mean they must incur additional costs as their inventory of less costly oil is sold. I am not unaware of the legitimacy of some of their concerns. But the wholly legitimate interests of the consuming public must be served. It must be clearly established that all charges made by the oil companies not arising directly from the cost of crude oil itself are justified.

The government of Canada -- friends of the Liberal members opposite -- proposed a 45-day delay in the introduction of this increase in gasoline and heating oil prices attributable to the increase in the field price of crude oil to $8 a barrel. My Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) urged the responsible minister in Ottawa to justify the 45-day period or extend it to 90 days. He did neither.

Our national government is evidently so wedded to higher prices for the consumers that, perhaps, it regarded this as a minor and unimportant situation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier was there last year. What is he going to do about Hydro by the way?

Mr. P. C. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Is that what is in the Premier’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But as well as the five cents a gallon directly attributable to the increase in the field price of crude oil, the federal government suggests additional charges by the oil companies. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources promises us federal guidelines, but given the circumstances we can take little comfort from this prospect. Ontario will tolerate no increases until such time as we are satisfied that the price charged for gasoline at the pumps and the heating oil delivered to our homes is justified.

We see a need for the careful marshalling of relevant facts that will be on hand at the conclusion of the 90-day price freeze. We see a need for the oil companies to explain fully to the consuming public their position and needs in connection with increases in crude oil prices. Therefore, my government proposes to appoint a one-man royal commission to marshal facts and, as necessary, to make relevant recommendations. The Minister of Energy will be announcing the terms of reference.

However, I can say that the commissioner will assess the adequacy of the federal price guidelines as they apply to Ontario. He will form opinions as to fair and reasonable pricing arrangements to apply beyond the 90-day freeze that is proposed by the government. Through monitoring experience over the next three months and analysing the results of the freeze, he will be able to recommend procedures for dealing with any price change -- presumably an increase -- that the government of Canada may attempt to impose upon the consumer of Ontario next year, or in subsequent years.

Ontario, like other provinces, must endure national policies, no matter how inappropriate they may be. But, in spite of federal initiatives, within the constitutional constraints --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier supported it last year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we will do everything in our power to protect the consumer of this province, and that is what I have made explicit to the members of this House today.

Mr. Lewis: It’s pretty tentative, but it’s a start.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the Premier put his money where his mouth is and take off the five cents he put on?

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

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier, more specifically, why it was that he did not include in his statement, a very strong statement, a position that this government can take with regard to the cost of electricity in this province?

An hon. member: He’s already explained that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely, if we’re going to roll it back on the basis of oil it must be maintained on the basis of hydro.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Okay, tell us why not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my statement today wasn’t clear to the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was very clear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as this whole subject obviously is not clear to him; the whole subject is obviously beyond him.

My statement today dealt with oil or petroleum products.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Energy goes beyond oil and petroleum.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’ve already discussed the application of Ontario Hydro for a rate increase, which is presently under review by the Ontario Energy Board --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): And that’s not inflationary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and for the Leader of the Opposition to try to draw a parallel is really a red herring and he knows it full well. It is fatuous; it is irrelevant; it just doesn’t make any sense -- and he well knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That self-satisfied little smirk there comes across -- Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Premier not agree that we are concerned with the price of energy in the province and not the price of oil --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and that if he’s going to be anything but a hopeless hypocrite --

Some hon. members: Right on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- he will bring forward a bill which directs the Energy Board not to permit an increase in the cost of electricity.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s strike two for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: And roll back the natural gas prices.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the Premier do that? He is not going to get up on that, eh? Well, a further supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition will ask a plain question I will try to give him a simple answer. I know that it is almost impossible for him to do so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I will ask the Premier a simple question and maybe he can handle it. Why does he feel that a 90-day freeze on the cost of heating fuel is going to have any significance in this province, since the heating season doesn’t start until the end of September? Is he just concerned with heating his swimming pool? What is the significance of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition and unlike the Prime Minister of Canada, I don’t have a swimming pool; so I’m not concerned about the heating of the swimming pool if that’s the question the hon. member is asking.

Mr. Turner: That’s strike three for the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put that supplementary to the gentleman again. What is the value of freezing those prices for heating fuel if he’s not going to allow it to continue beyond 90 days so that it will have some importance in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition would listen just once and try to understand just once --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it just that the Premier wants the election to be over?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we are imposing a 90-day freeze, in the subsequent period of time we are appointing a royal commission to look very precisely at the question of inventory, the $1.50 and the impact upon the consumer, whether it’s gasoline, heating oil or other products that are related to the $1.50 price increase.

I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I’m trying to offer him a little friendly advice -- for heaven’s sake, stop apologizing and defending the federal government in what is a very inappropriate budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nobody is apologizing.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The people of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition wants to go down in history --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It was a very satisfactory budget.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The government cut off $1 billion of its expenditures --

Mr. Good: “Two-billion McKeough.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Why doesn’t the government roll back the gas price?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West has a supplementary question he would like to ask.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have no use for either of them, but we’ll wait it out. The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) sent me a little note saying: “Tomorrow Is June 23.” I just wanted to share that with you.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It should have said “Tomorrow Is Never Coming.”

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, who does he have in mind for the royal commissioner? Has he decided that yet? Or is he saving that for another announcement? Surely he is not going to turn to the second row of the NDP. There is a limit.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be less than honest if I said the government did not have somebody in mind. But the government is not prepared to announce the name of that person today. I expect it will be in a day or so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I take it what the Premier is actually doing, stripped of the rhetoric, is simply running out the inventory that he knows the major oil companies have, without any further commitment until he hears from the royal commissioner on price freeze or price levels of any kind. Fair? May I ask the Premier then, by way of supplementary: Why does he not use this opportunity -- can I ask him to consider this -- to recover from the oil companies the $62-million windfall they made last year when they raised their prices before their inventory was exhausted --

Mr. Martel: This government did that.

Mr. Lewis: -- by extending the 90 days to 120 or 130 days -- or more, in fact, it would be; well toward the end of 1975 -- so that we could recapture for the consumers of Ontario what he allowed the oil companies to extort last year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. leader of the New Democratic group is lumping --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The NDG -- “No Damned Good.”

Mr. Lewis: What about a corporal’s guard or something? Why is the Premier so kind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, who is going to win on the weekend?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The chosen few.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to get into a lengthy debate on the intricacies of oil pricing, or to appear to be explaining what is a problem for the oil companies, in terms of, as the member would phrase it, windfall profits. The fact of the matter is that the oil companies, on the basis of existing accounting procedures and tax laws, are being taxed at probably 50 per cent on their inventory as of July, on the increased price, for which they get nothing back from the consumer. Yes, the member for High Park is looking askance, but let him check it out and I think he will find that that is factually true.

I think it’s also very unwise to couple all seven companies into exactly the same position, as we understand it. Of course, this is something the commissioner will be looking into. The inventory supplies vary from company to company. They vary from, say, 20 days in the case of one or two, to something like 90-plus in the case, I think, of one. So, to say that all of them had made a profit or were in the process of doing so is not factually correct.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is one function of the royal commission where the public, the oil companies and all of us will have an opportunity to get a greater understanding and factual information as they relate to this part of the matter that the commissioner will be studying.

Mr. Martel: It would have been nice if the Premier had done that last year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a supplementary. If this House and the people of Ontario are to accept even a semblance of integrity of motivation in the Premier’s statement, could he explain to me, having regard to the fact that the inflationary spiral has been with us for many months, why he didn’t stop the increases in the rate structure of the natural gas distributing companies in this province?

Secondly, if the Premier is so sincerely motivated to assist against inflation, why doesn’t he roll back those increases now, concurrent with the freeze that he put on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, whatever increases have been passed onto the consumer by the distributors of natural gas here in this province, are all subject to hearings by the Ontario Energy Board. They may be judgements, but they related to legitimate cost increases on the part of the distributors. The system has worked relatively well. Sure, we’d love to have a lower increase in costs but a good part of the increase that we are talking about here today comes strictly from taxation by the two levels of government and the two producing provinces, and by the member’s federal colleagues.

Mr. Bullbrook: If I may -- recognizing that the Premier didn’t want to answer my first question directly -- is it not a fact that the Energy Board, in evaluating the propriety or otherwise of an increase in rate structure does not look into the question of its inflationary tendencies on the economy, but purely, as is what the Premier has said, it only looks as to the cost of production and distribution? Their entitlement to an increase has nothing to do with the economy.

May I ask again: Please, if we are to accept any sincerity of motivation -- other than the most crass political motivation -- why does he not roll those back now? Why did he not intervene at that time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the member for Sarnia is really -- well, no, I won’t say it -- he knows full well the function of the Ontario Energy Board. He knows full well how it operates and he knows it relates to the costs the companies have in provision of their product, from the west or wherever, and their own costs in terms of distribution.

The Energy Board, Mr. Speaker, has not been used as an instrument as it relates to inflation or non-inflation. This is a very real distinction between that and the increase of $1.50 a barrel which is totally a tax increase in the hands of the federal government.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is a distinction the Premier can overcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier sees what is happening. When we get down to the gut issues he sees what happens. I am not allowed to ask these things.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia has had two supplementaries; the member for High Park would like a supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: It shows the hypocrisy of this Premier.

Mr. Shulman: Is it reasonable to expect the royal commissioner to be able to report within 90 days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we believe it is.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could tell us; in view of his rather unhappy view of the federal budget --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Isn’t it the member’s?

Mr. Singer: -- and in view of the statements which say the Ontario budget was dependent upon level oil prices, when we are going to see the new Ontario budget, the recasting of the amount of the deficit -- presently above $1.7 billion -- and the recasting of the amount of expenditures? Could he tell us when the people of Ontario are going to get the true Ontario picture?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that whatever is determined by this government will recognize, as it has, the two main problems facing the people of this province and, I say with respect, the people of this country, which we dealt with in the budget by the Treasurer. Those are inflation and unemployment, the need to stimulate the economy and the need to restrain inflation --

Mr. Singer: I asked the Premier when he was going to bring us a revised budget.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the two main items which were totally neglected in the federal budget. I expect the hon. member will recall my statement of last week that the Treasurer of this province is assessing the federal budget, its impact --

Mr. Singer: Aren’t his 10 days up today?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. As a matter of fact, if the member for Downsview will take both hands and count on all 10 fingers, he will find the date is tomorrow.

Mr. Singer: Tomorrow? A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South with a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Can’t I have a second one, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Singer: Everybody else has two supplementaries and you are cutting me off.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South has a supplementary.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would tell us if, in the terms of reference of the commissioner, he will ask him to consider the differential in gas prices between northern and southern Ontario, to see if there might be a way of equalizing those prices for the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that undertaking. We recognize there is a differential. I think that really the commissioner -- and I acknowledge this -- will have his hands full in dealing with the basic question of the position of the oil companies and the application of the $1.50 per barrel or what may be imposed by the federal government somewhere down the road.

I don’t minimize the concern of the hon. member. It has been expressed by members of our caucus from northern Ontario, but I can’t give that undertaking. I don’t think there would be time to assess that. I think his main function will have to relate to the issues I have suggested.

Mr. Martel: The Premier has had a long time to resolve that one though, hasn’t he?

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: If there is not one from the official opposition? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Did the Premier not say in his statement that it was the responsibility of the commissioner to investigate and to make recommendations to the government with regard to pricing policies on oil and gas? Surely, within that, it is the responsibility of the commissioner to examine the differential between north and south and see if there is, as there undoubtedly is, unjustified extortion from the northern consumer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I am not minimizing the problem. I am being realistic. I would say that, certainly at the outset, the commissioner will have his hands full. I acknowledged to the member of High Park it is not going to be easy, but we think it can be done. Initially, his main task will be to sort out the position of the companies, the implications of the $1.50, and I think recommendations that will flow from that. I have to say that I think that will have to be his initial responsibility. In any event it obviously will have an impact on the north.

Mr. Speaker: There have been sufficient supplementaries. The Leader of the Opposition with a new question.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy. Has there been a procedure worked out so that the smaller oil companies which will not have a supply of oil at the old price on hand will not be forced to undergo a larger net loss of revenue by the imposition of this freeze? Is there some procedure whereby the smaller companies are not going to be --

Mr. Stokes: Such solicitude.

Mr. Lewis: Heart-throbbing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They can throb away.

Mr. Foulds: What is the member after -- a management rights clause?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I think that question really should wait until the bill has been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman).

Mr. Lewis: Presumably he makes exceptions for Home Oil, Imperial Oil.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister can make no statement on the information that we’ve been reading today that the stores on hand vary quite dramatically from one company to the other?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely, in a circumstance like this, the minister is concerned, as are we all, with equity?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that when my colleague, the hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, introduces the bill, once we reach orders of the day, that question should more properly be put following that, during debate. The answer will be evident in the bill.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EFFECTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing. Are we to expect a repeal of the land speculation tax before the House rises, or a statement of policy with regard to it? The minister feels -- and I think very correctly -- that the imposition of that tax has dislocated the housing market. According to one statement he has made, he is looking forward to its removal or placing it in a moratorium situation.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the statement the member is referring to. I don’t believe that it is correctly reported.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I may, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Is the minister not aware of the report in Canadian Building of June, 1975? I quote from it: “The province’s Housing minister, Donald Irvine, stated in an interview published that the speculation tax may be rescinded or a moratorium may be placed on it for an indefinite period.” That’s a direct quote.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I certainly spoke to the housing association. What I said was that there may be a time when the land speculation tax can be removed. I didn’t think that time had come at the particular time I made the statement, nor do I at this particular time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is it that the minister was trying to convey to those people in a confidential way that he was something less than in support of the imposition of that tax, whereas maintaining the public front that is necessary, since it clearly states that the minister said that the tax was on its way out? Those are the minister’s words.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said, nor what I have said in the past. The land speculation tax has a real purpose to play --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Somebody else must have said it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to control the cost of lands. I support the tax fully. It has stopped the escalating prices of land in the more urbanized areas, and as far as I am concerned it has helped housing to be developed and has worked.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board why it is that, in the answers to the questions yesterday, he was not able to include an answer to the question on the costs of the advertising programme, which he said at the time would be available on short notice if the question would just be put on the order paper?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I said on a previous occasion that I don’t prepare the answers to the questions that come back to be tabled. If there is a specific there that the member wants, I’ll endeavour to get it for him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister was good enough to tell us that the costs of the committee on the costs of education in the elementary and secondary schools was $656,000, and that it has not finished its final report yet, could he not at the same time have gotten us the cost of the advertising programmes which the government is undertaking this year, in this election year? Does he recall saying to the House, when this was raised in the question period, that all he had to do was put that on the order paper and the answer would be prepared without delay?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I will have that looked into, and if the total information is not there I’ll see that it’s made available.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

ENERGY PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to come back to the Premier for a moment, if I could. Since his statement declaimed that the excise increase of 10 cents a gallon and the $1.50 increase were both taxes imposed by the federal government -- effectively taxes imposed by the federal government -- why does he choose to protect the consumers on a temporary basis from the smaller tax but allow the larger tax to be applied? Why does his freeze not apply in advance of the 10 cent excise tax and roll that back as well?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the answer to that is relatively simple, Mr. Speaker. The 10 cent tax is on a wholesaler. It was on distributors who may or may not be large companies. It would impose very severe financial hardships on some of the smaller distributors. It is tax payable immediately by the companies themselves. It is quite different in terms of its application in respect of inventory and what have you, from $1.50 a barrel. It is not possible to treat it in the same way. It is a direct tax by the federal government of 10 cents a gallon which reflects itself on the consumer, but it is not the same as the $1.50 per barrel.

Mr. Lewis: To producers.

Mr. Deans: But it is still --

Mr. Lewis: I understand it is a different form of tax. It is a specific federal tax. Since the Minister of Energy has indicated already, by implication, that there will be exclusions or exceptions in the bill which will be introduced today to protect the smaller inventories, why can he not make the same exclusions and exceptions for the smaller distributors or producers where the excise tax was concerned? Why can he not give to the royal commissioner at the end of 90 days the right to review the whole pricing system, including the additional 10 cent excise tax, rather than having everyone pay that for the next three months?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t even get into the constitutionality of that argument but I have to state there is a very distinct difference between the $1.50 crude oil price increase and the direct 10 cents excise tax imposed by the federal government as of a week ago Monday night. There is a very real distinction, and there is no way we can deal with that in terms of what we are doing under the Act that will be introduced in 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine; bring in another Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Just so there is no misunderstanding, the consumers need not expect that 10 cents is going to be rolled back by the introduction of this bill or its passage?

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The Liberals can take the blame for it.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): The member for Brant shouldn’t try and protect Pierre.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My statement made that abundantly clear. The 10 cents will be paid, unfortunately, by the consumers of this province because of a very tax-hungry federal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Renwick: Because of the default of this government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have got the right to impose that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier will concede, however, that the tax applied by the federal government, the excise tax, is not applied to the consumer -- the only reason it is applied to the consumer by the companies is the default of his government; he understands that?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not so.

Mr. Deans: There is no protection for the consumer.

Mr. Lewis: All right, let me ask the Premier another thing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Would it not be possible -- I submit it would be possible -- to pass an Act today --

Mr. Renwick: And they go --

Mr. Lewis: -- putting a 90-day freeze on the application of the excise tax as of June 23, until he decides what to do with it? That is within provincial jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, that is payable. I don’t know what the terms of the federal government are or when they have to pay it; the tax is being calculated now --

Mr. Deans: It is payable, but not at the retail level.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- by the federal government and it will have to be paid. We have no way of dealing with it; we can’t deal with it.

Mr. Renwick: He is letting it be passed on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park has a supplementary.

An hon. member: Let’s have some order here.

Mr. Shulman: Will the Premier concede that even with the new 10-cent federal tax, the tax on gasoline imposed by the federal government is still less than the tax imposed by his government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to concede that; just as some of our taxes are less than the federal government’s.

Mr. Lewis: He is right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that is very obvious. I am surprised the member for High Park would find it necessary to ask the question.

Mr. Shulman: It may not be obvious to everyone else.

Mr. Henderson: Look at all the roads we build.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It doesn’t alter the situation that the federal government has imposed an unnecessary tax of 10 cents a gallon. If they want to encroach on provincial revenues even further -- which apparently they are in the process of doing -- the centralist from Sarnia, as I read the paper, is totally in support of that kind of approach which is in direct conflict to what his leader says from time to time -- but then he is in conflict with what he says from time to time.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the Premier want to debate that with me?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to the member for High Park’s question is yes. I know that it is.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am prepared to. He should name a time and place. I am prepared to.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a new question.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I want to come back briefly --

Mr. Singer: Robarts used to be a bit of a centralist too.

An hon. member: Yes, John Robarts --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Premier --

Mr. Singer: Back in the days before Confederation for tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: -- since he has obviously placed the 90-day freeze to coincide with the inventories -- that’s obviously what the Premier is doing, more or less -- and since he has therefore accepted the principle of exhausting inventories, and although we will come back to it on second reading, can I ask the Premier to review again, therefore, to be consistent and logical with his present position, the situation last year where ironically there were 75 days of inventory -- I have now got the figures in front of me -- available to the oil companies which they attached the additional costs in advance -- that’s beyond the 45 days -- and it would therefore make it unnecessary to increase prices in Ontario before Jan. 1, 1976, if the Premier were to recapture for the consumers what the oil companies took last year.

Mr. Martel: And he defended it then.

Mr. Lewis: Since the Premier has accepted the principle, why doesn’t he make it consistent and truly protect the consumer?

Mr. Martel: And he defended it last year.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess we could spend the whole afternoon debating fact or points of view which may or may not be totally accurate. I just don’t think any purpose would be served.

Mr. Martel: No, no.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, because the Premier would lose.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Energy will be spelling out the terms of reference for the commissioner, and if the leader of the New Democratic organization, group, party, or corporal’s guard, or whatever term he may wish to use, wishes to make observations then that would be great.

Mr. Speaker: I think we have had sufficient supplementaries on this particular subject. A new question please.

Mr. Lewis: We are an institution in this province, Mr. Speaker, let alone a group.

Mr. Foulds: Or a corporal’s guard.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t characterize it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Where did the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) go?

An hon. member: He got sick.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He’s gone out to call an ambulance for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: We will act as stretcher-bearers if he gets the vehicle.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I will survive, but I don’t think the Treasurer will.

Mr. Singer: Fatuosity isn’t mentioned.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour a question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I understand the Leader of the Opposition had 40 people in Chatham a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That should be enough to do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Scarborough West like to place his question?

Mr. Lewis: I had 17.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, how is it --

Mr. Good: Just the executives of the riding associations.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, I apologize. Let me ask the question.

ASBESTOS LEVELS AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. Lewis: How is it that on May 6 last when he announced, as part of his team that included Health and Natural Resources, the efforts to inform people who were partially disabled as a result of silicosis or asbestosis of their right to move to another job and to be removed from that working environment, and not a single partially disabled person at Johns-Manville has been informed of the government decision and the decision followed up?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure just what check was done at Johns-Manville. Our main concern, of course, was up at Elliot Lake, where we have already moved in there. Dr. Stewart and the team have been up interviewing the people at that point, and it depends on the record of these people and what we find. It is going to take a little time to do it. Elliot Lake is the first one that we are working on.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister aware that there are now 69 active and sought-after compensation claims for partial disability from Johns-Manville and that, in fact, there was a death in April, a death in May, a death in June, and that the list continues to climb at that plant with no discernible intervention on the part of the government? Can I ask the minister to move on Johns-Manville as well?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, if the member is referring to moving on what we may be able to do, yes, certainly --

Mr. Lewis: Taking the men out of the plant.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have already moved as far as the conditions in the plant at Johns-Manville are concerned.

Mr. Martel: What about the WCB?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As for the other things that the member is asking us to do, yes, we will get all those as quickly as we can.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Minister of Health a question as a follow-up to that. Why is it that the most recent tests of the dust levels at Johns-Manville have not been posted? Secondly, does the minister know that the union is about to launch a suit against the company, that the x-ray records of over 100 men have been requisitioned and that one of the physicians who requisitioned them has indicated to the union that the abnormalities in the x-rays turned up in individual cases several years before the men were notified; and can I ask the minister why the union should have to pursue negligence in the law, rather than the government asking for the x-rays from these various companies and seeing whether there was a negligent act committed?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware the union was taking an action against the company. I did look into the testing procedures the member talked about yesterday and found that in fact our results were back very promptly to the physicians. Yesterday the member referred to the x-ray tests taken in June, 1974, and asked why it took a year for the men to get them.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have been informed that the plant doctor was aware of them very quickly.

I will look into the fact that the latest tests haven’t been posted. I am quite sure they will be. I found the company quite willing to post them, and the union corroborated that fact when I was out there.

The member will recall our having an exchange on the floor of the House on this once before, when I said the test results were being posted and the member said they were not being posted. I was challenged the next day by the president of the union in Oshawa. He claimed they were not being posted. I couldn’t deny his statement because I didn’t personally know; and yet the very next day

-- the very next day -- when I visited that firm in company with the Minister of Labour and the social policy field chairman, I asked that same leader whether the company was posting those requirements and he said they were. He said that privately, and publicly he said they weren’t.

Mr. Lewis: None of the recent tests were posted.

Hon. Mr. Miller: So before I accept the fact they aren’t being posted, I would like to find out.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has an answer to a question asked by the member for Scarborough West on June 22.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to defer that since time is going. Could I take that answer another day?

Mr. Speaker: Well that’s up to the minister. Does the minister want to answer the question today or leave it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, it’s all right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

MEAT LABELLING

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the minister of resources -- is that the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick’s job?

An hon. member: Resources Development.

Mr. Sargent: Resources Development.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What’s the member’s job?

Mr. Sargent: Seeing the provincial secretary is pinch-hitting for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) -- is he?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Am I?

Mr. Speaker: Would the member ask his question? We have only 11 minutes of the question period left.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in today’s paper there is a variance in prices of steaks from 79 cents a pound to $1.38 a pound; I would like to ask the minister what protection we have that we are getting steaks from cows or steers; and secondly, why doesn’t the government take steps --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: I know it’s funny to the ministry, but the House might think it’s important anyway -- why doesn’t the government take steps to have it marked clearly exactly what’s in the package one gets?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Has the member ever heard of federal labelling laws?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know why the hon. member is so worried about whether I can answer questions related to agriculture and farming generally. He must appreciate the fact -- and I am sure most hon. members do -- that I was the biggest farmer in Ontario for almost eight years --

Mr. Reid: He is now the biggest manure farmer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I really know the answers to these questions. So, Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice and get an answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

BOILER INSPECTION AT TILBURY PLANT

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister ensure that his boiler inspection branch inspects the coal-fired boiler at Telso Products Ltd. in Tilbury, a company which has been on strike for some 10 months? The boiler, I gather, has now been in operation for some two months. Would the ministry inspectors examine the installation to see that it is safe to operate and is declared fit for operation after an eight-month layoff?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check into that to see if it’s done. I assume my hon. friend will ensure the inspector is allowed to cross the picket line.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I am sure that can be arranged if it’s necessary. A supplementary on that: Would the minister also see that a qualified engineer is operating that boiler now that it is back in operation; and that he is there continuously, as the Act requires for that kind of a boiler?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I will take every step possible to ensure the Act is being complied with.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware of the comments I made on April 7 in Hansard, page 585, when I showed my strong centralist tendencies by pointing out that, in my opinion, the Attorney General should take issue with the Minister of Justice at Ottawa in connection with the deprivation of the rights of due process of law outlined in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights?

Has the minister developed a policy in connection with this matter, concurrent with the private bill put forward in the House of Commons by the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker? Could he expostulate for us today as a matter of policy as our Justice secretary whether he agrees with the concept as expressed by me that day that nobody should be deprived of due process of law as contemplated by the Bill of Rights, as has been done by the Supreme Court of Canada? And would he communicate that policy, if he so has it to the Minister of Justice for the protection of the people of Ontario?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to make my observations known to the hon. member. I think his colleague from Downsview asked a similar question yesterday. I just take the position right now, without having all of the facts before me as I haven’t seen the private member’s that Mr. Diefenbaker introduced --

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not asking about the bill; he asked that yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, he asked that yesterday and I undertook to take a look at that bill and I think I must take a look at that bill.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, I have to clarify it. I’m not asking about Mr. Diefenbaker’s bill. I want to put it to the Attorney General, again if I may, so that I’m not misunderstood, has he developed a question of policy, being the Provincial Secretary for Justice, that a person is entitled to due process of law, as prescribed in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, and is seemingly deprived of it in the Morgentaler decision? That’s all I’m asking. It is not about Diefenbaker’s bill at all. Does the Attorney General agree that there should be due process all the way through?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, not only I but my predecessors ahead of me believe in the due process of justice. There’s no question about it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would be then communicate, for the protection of the people of Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member is talking about Quebec though. They’ll look after their own. I’ll look after Ontario.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does he realize the Supreme Court decision obtains in Ontario as well as Quebec? Surely he is that familiar with the principle? I’m asking the minister if he would communicate --

Hon. Mr. Clement: I remember it.

Mr. Bullbrook: But I obviously remember it a little more than the minister does. That’s the distinction.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the Attorney General communicate that desire for protection to the Minister of Justice in Ottawa? That’s all I’m asking.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I take it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants me to use whatever political persuasion I have on his colleague in Ottawa to override the Supreme Court of Canada?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, not at all. One final supplementary; So that the Attorney General understands fully, I want him to write a letter that’s headed on top, “Attorney General of Ontario to the Minister of Justice”, saying he wants that protection for our people. That’s what I want.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur,

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry for that centralist attitude.

HOUSING IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister aware that in April in Thunder Bay there were no bachelor apartments or three-bedroom apartments available at all and only 20 one-bedroom apartments at an average price of $189 a month? Can the minister tell us what steps his ministry is developing to overcome these deficiencies in places in Ontario like Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Thunder Bay two or three times earlier this year, I did go into the matter of housing accommodation on all levels, whether it was the private sector or government-financed, and I did find that Thunder Bay has more government units than most communities in Ontario. We have also initiated certain steps to provide further senior citizen accommodation, rent-geared-to-income accommodation. I would hope that there would be a HOME development before long.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Just so the minister doesn’t misunderstand, these are not government units that I’m talking about; these are private units. I would like the minister to outline what step he can take or what initiatives his ministry is taking to encourage production in that section.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for clarifying that. I thought he meant government units. What we are doing to have the private sector provide some rental accommodation is have our limited dividend programme, the elderly programme, effective in Thunder Bay. In the second call, we’ve already gone out with another $50 million. I expect there will be other funds available in the not-too-distant future for other rental accommodations throughout Ontario and I would ensure that Thunder Bay was included.

Mr. Foulds: Could the minister project how the units would be developed under the limited dividend programme as it applies to Thunder Bay now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have 4,000 units under the LD programme, and we may have an additional 2,000 units.

Mr. Foulds: In Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, no. All over Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

PRICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the ministry still monitoring prices in Northern Ontario? And if so, does the minister have a report for the Legislature? -- as I asked him for some months ago -- that would indicate the differential in prices to the consumer of all the range of consumer goods, as opposed to prices in Southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The monitoring has been completed. A report has been prepared. Since it covers a great deal more than simply monitoring of prices, I think I would have to go through it and perhaps do a selective job on distributing to the members the information contained therein. Much of it is factual and much of it will form the basis of an announcement to be made in northwestern Ontario, I would think some time next month.

Mr. Reid: If I may, by supplementary, do I gather that the report as it exists now will not be made public? Does that mean an annotated report will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it’s an internal report from a member of the ministry staff to me, and I will try to make available to the hon. member such statistical data as may be of assistance to him.

Mr. Reid: One final supplementary, if I may: Can the minister indicate if within that report the cost of home heating oil and gasoline makes up part of the price? And will this be an ongoing thing? Because the price of gas, for instance, in Ignace is 91 cents a gallon today.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t recall the detail of the report. If that information is in there, certainly it can be made to the member.

Mr. Stokes: Did that inquiry include the cost of premiums for automobile insurance?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the report. As I say, I will make the statistical data available to all interested members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside has a question.

ELDORADO DUMP AT PORT HOPE

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment concerning complaints about Eldorado Atomic Ltd. and its disposal dump at Port Hope. What is the ministry doing in reply to complaints, first, that there is inadequate fencing; second, that there is inadequate warning signing; and, third, that wastes are being left on the ground to dry out and blow away instead of being buried at this site?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, of course, Eldorado is the responsibility of the government of Canada. We have been in touch with the federal environmental people, who are investigating it right now. We are in constant contact with them about it, pointing out our concerns to them.

Mr. Burr: Does the minister agree that a public investigation should be held on this matter?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this comes under the jurisdiction of Mme. Sauve, the federal Minister of the Environment. That ministry is looking into the matter right now and investigating the whole matter. We are keeping in close touch with them on it. I have no way of calling for an inquiry on it; it’s a federal matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce. This will be the last question.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PROPERTY CONTROLS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: How does the new policy allowing severances from farm property apply and how will it affect all the areas controlled by the Niagara Escarpment Commission?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The area controlled by the Niagara Escarpment Commission does not fall under the same guidelines as I announced some weeks ago. The Niagara Escarpment Commission will rule on the development in the Niagara Escarpment planning area. If an application is turned down, a hearing will be set up by myself, as the Minister of Housing, and recommendations will be made to the Minister of Housing, at which time the application will be dealt with, either yes or no.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the controls are so bad that you almost have to get an application to mow your lawn now in this whole area, why can’t the ministry relax the severances in the Niagara Escarpment, the same as it has here?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be irresponsible to relax it entirely in the Niagara Escarpment area, where we are trying to preserve a very unusual type of land. I think it would be very important that we reserve it to the ultimate if possible but we can’t have all development stopped and I have said that before. We will allow certain developments and they will be judged on their merits only so we can allow severances to go ahead as we have said we would in other areas.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McKeough presented the report of the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. financial statements and report on the audit for the year ended March 31, 1975, and the 1974 report of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS PRICE FREEZE ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to provide for an Interim Freeze in the Price of Certain Petroleum Products.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the bill imposes a temporary freeze on prices charged for petroleum products sold in Ontario and used for heating or operating vehicles.

The price fixed is that prevailing on June 23, 1975, subject only to increases due to changes in the federal excise tax. The freeze is for three months, subject to limited extension by the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the assembly is recessed, or not in session.

POUNDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to Amend the Pounds Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the prohibition against certain animals running at large in territories without municipal organization is extended to all cattle, horses, sheep and goats. The maximum fine for contravention of the prohibition is increased from $10 to $30 and there is no minimum.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day I beg to inform the House that the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor will proceed to her chambers this afternoon at 5:30 for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to inform members of the House and staff who will be on duty tonight that due to the Shriners’ parade there is going to be a certain congestion around the building here so arrangements have been made with the Metro police that members will be able to leave at 6 o’clock without difficulty, returning prior to 8 or at 8, if they use the west side of Queen’s Park Cres., coming from the west along College St. and up the wrong side of the crescent, which is the one on the west side of the building. The west entrance will be open and Metro police have been alerted.

When the House adjourns use the west exit again, down along University Ave. to College and then either east or west on College.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, this bill is a companion bill --

Mr. Speaker: Maybe the minister would like to make a statement first.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): The only statement I would like to make is to say that all this does to amend the Environmental Protection Act is to allow for the dissolution of the Environmental Hearing Board and to replace it with the Environmental Assessment Board. This is just legislation complementary to the other bill, if it passes. This will be going to standing committee also.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, this is strictly a housekeeping bill. It is based on the assumption that Bill 14 will pass third reading and be proclaimed in which event, as the minister indicated, this bill is simply complementary to Bill 14 in that the Environmental Hearing Board will be replaced by the Environmental Assessment Board. I see, really, no objections to this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: This bill is supplementary to Bill 14. We have no further comment on it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. W. Newman: Standing committee. Agreed.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same as Bill 15. It is to allow for the dissolution of the Environmental Assessment Board.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: I have the same comments that I made in connection with Bill 15, Mr. Speaker. It’s simply complementary to Bill 14.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Riverdale have any comments?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. W. Newman: Standing committee.

Agreed.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a few comments. I would like to ask about the fact that the restructured county of Oxford is included in this bill. I presume this is because it is neither regional government nor under its old county structure. The new divisions of the restructured county must be included in this to show the new divisions of Woodstock and Tillsonburg, plus the townships.

The rest of the bill deals with the 358 geographic townships in the districts of Algoma, Sudbury and Thunder Bay which previously were referred to by number and now have such names attached to them as Carruthers, Bullbrook, Burr -- just to cite a few examples -- which I am sure the members of the Legislature have perused. Meen, Parrott, Shulman, Morningstar, McIlveen and Maeck are other names of townships which were undoubtedly named after members of this Legislature.

There is one thing I notice which gives me a little concern. There is a Mack township and also a Maeck township. It is a little unusual to me that there should be two townships with much the same pronunciation but a different spelling.

We have nothing further to say on this other than that I reserve judgment as to whether it was a good idea or not that these townships be named after members of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Our only comment on the bill is an explanation of the repeal and re-enactment of the area consisting of the county of Oxford.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): The member for Waterloo North is correct in his interpretation of the purpose of this bill, which is basically to provide names for townships which were formerly merely designated by number.

If I could indicate this to members, the selection of these township designations is the work of an all-party committee to name numbered and lettered townships in northern Ontario. The committee selection, which was approved by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who set up the committee in March, 1973. The names chosen included 55 members of this legislative assembly; 39 chiefs of reserves; 81 northern mayors and reeves and four chairmen of improvement districts, past and present.

Mr. Good: And a defeated cabinet minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: And, probably, the names of some future cabinet ministers.

The member for Riverdale asked about Oxford. The present legislation indicates that the county of Oxford will consist of the city of Woodstock; the town of Tillsonburg; the separated town of Ingersoll; and the villages of Beachville, Embro, Norwich, Tavistock and the townships of Blandford, Blenheim, Dereham East Nissouri, East Oxford, East Zorra, North Norwich, North Oxford, South Norwich, West Oxford and West Zorra.

After the restructuring of the county, some of those municipalities were combined with others to bring to us the municipalities named in paragraph 27.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

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

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, briefly, this bill enables the councils of Woodstock and the town of Ingersoll to make an interim levy of 75 per cent of their 1974 levy rather than a 50 per cent levy which was included in the original Oxford bill.

The question I wanted to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, is why would there be such a great delay in the ability of these two municipalities to have their final budgeting completed and their tax billing ready to be rendered? Either that, or I’m misunderstanding the bill. Why do they have to have 75 per cent of their revenue levied so early in the year? Surely by now, or sometime even before this, they would have their budgeting completed and their levies figured out for this year. The only reason I could possibly think of is that their costs have gone up to such an extent that 75 per cent of last year’s levy will only equal 50 per cent of this year’s levy.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get any ministerial notes to cabinet on this bill, so I can’t get a detailed explanation. But I’m sure the minister will assist me in my thinking on this.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, all we would ask of the minister is that he explain the reason for the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was written the policy was that the municipalities should be able to levy up to 75 per cent, as is indicated in the actual bill itself. It became a legal problem regarding some of the wording on the basis of, as it says in the clause in the original bill, “merged areas,” there were some legal opinions that indicated that they did not consider all the municipalities as having been merged.

The point that is raised by the hon. member for Waterloo North is that this actually holds up the county levy. This way, actually all the municipalities within the restructured county of Oxford will now have the same abilities to levy op to 75 per cent. As it stands at the present moment, there are several which can only go up to 50 per cent, because they are on the same basis as they were prior to the bill setting up the restructured county.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 113, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

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

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is allow Metropolitan Toronto to be considered a county for the purposes of the General Welfare Assistance Act. It’s interesting to note what the implications of that particular amendment mean to the city. The province has various ways in which it figures out its assistance to a municipality for all those costs incurred under the General Welfare Assistance Act, which is the direct welfare paid out through the social committees of the municipalities.

The way things are presently, a city is given 50 per cent of its welfare costs after the 1964 costs have been deducted from its total costs. In other words, the 50 per cent paid by the province applies to both city and counties; except that presently, say the complete costs were $800,000 and in the year 1964 that municipality happened to spend $200,000 on welfare under the General Welfare Assistance Act, then that $200,000 would be deducted first, leaving $600,000, and the province would pay 50 per cent of that $600,000, which would be a total of $300,000.

The new setup is more favourable to Metropolitan Toronto in that it is now considered a county, because the manner of figuring the subsidy from the province in the instance of counties has been a straight 50 per cent of the approved welfare cost for that particular year. The same municipality, having an $800,000 budget, would receive 50 per cent or $400,000 which, in effect, would be $100,000 more than it had received previously; I am sure the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will benefit by larger provincial subsidies in the expenditures it makes under the General Welfare Assistance Act.

I was somewhat intrigued as to how they arrived at the formula of deducting the 1964 costs before the 50 per cent was applied but I suppose way back there was some logic to it which at this present time escapes me. We will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the lucid explanation given by the member for Waterloo North as the reason for the bill. I am curious as to why the provision of Bill 114 is limited only to the General Welfare Assistance Act whereas the bill which I assume we will be dealing with later on this afternoon -- Bill 101, dealing with the other regional municipalities in Ontario -- deems them also to be counties for the purposes of the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act and the Day Nurseries Act.

Mr. Good: No money involved.

Mr. Renwick: It may simply be that it is not of any significance. It would appear to me that if provision is being made for the other regional governments a similar provision should have been inserted in the bill we are presently considering, particularly at this point in time when the question of homemakers’ and nurses’ services and of day nurseries is one of significance. I cannot understand why it should be necessary for the other regional governments to be deemed counties and the Metropolitan Toronto corporation to remain simply as a city for the purposes of those Acts. There is money under the day nurseries.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the minister replies?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, the point of this bill, as has been mentioned, is merely the classification of Metro Toronto for grant purposes; instead of calling it a city it is called a county. This will bring it into uniformity with all the other regional bills. On the points raised by the hon. member for Riverdale, I have been informed that Metro Toronto has the same privileges as the regions as far as nurses and the other matters he mentioned are concerned.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): We have now.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that this was an attempt to deal with this specific matter of general welfare because it was not looked after in the Metropolitan Toronto Act as long as it is called a city. By calling it a county the general welfare administrative part is now looked after. The points the member raised, which are going to come up in the other bills are, I am informed, already within the abilities of Metropolitan Toronto; therefore an amendment wasn’t necessary.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the minister would allow a question because of the brevity of the bill rather than put it into committee for that purpose. Am I to understand that his advisers have told him that Metropolitan Toronto is, for the purposes of the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act and the Day Nurseries Act, deemed to be a county and not a city at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, it has been confirmed that this is taken care of in the actual Homemakers Nurses Services Act. I believe the easiest way to answer his question is by saying yes. In other words, it is confirmation of the information I was given before.

Mr. Renwick: I will take it for yes. Will he drop me a note and confirm it to me?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: I will be delighted to do that. If he doesn’t mind I’ll get it in writing first from the staff that has so informed me.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 114, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. Renwick: That bill wasn’t called.

Mr. Good: I am ready for it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I’m sorry. That wasn’t one of the ones I was given.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that bill was not called on the list which we were given.

Mr. Deans: I think it’s the wrong one.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): It should be Bill 101.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, it may assist the hon. member for Wentworth if we can move on to another bill.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry, but I wasn’t ready for that yet.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 101, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act.

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

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a conglomeration of amendments to various regional government bills across the Province of Ontario, and I think, some of the matters contained herein are worthy of mention.

First, dealing with the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, evidently they have a transit system --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would my friend agree that perhaps because it is such a miscellaneous bill, it would be more easily dealt with by putting it directly into committee of the whole House?

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, as far as our party is concerned, there is no need for this bill to go to committee of the whole House, unless the minister is going to propose changes in it. I think the questions I have regarding it can be answered, and while it is miscellaneous it doesn’t matter that much to me.

I have just a short summary of the various things that are changed within the bill, and I presume that they are matters that had been asked for by the municipalities. There are some implications, one in particular dealing with Waterloo, but I have no objection to anything within the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Riverdale agree that the member for Waterloo North proceed?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest for a moment that he not proceed if he wishes to do so. All I would feel compelled to do, in any event, was to ask that the bill go into committee -- I assume committee of the whole House -- because it is such a miscellaneous collection of amendments. I’d like an explanation on the record of the various points which are covered, in addition to the explanatory notes which are in the bill.

Mr. Good: All right. The first matter concerns the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and deals with the transportation system which operates outside the urban area and the agreements for the provision of this passenger transport service.

The principle in this section, Mr. Speaker, allows that the region may make a levy against the area municipality for any deficit incurred by this regional transportation system. There is a further provision which I think is somewhat unusual and I’ve never seen anything just like that. The regional council has discretion when making that levy against the area government to take into consideration various factors, that is, the amount of the transportation service provided to that municipality, the financial implications in providing that service to that outside municipality, the equalized assessment of that area as against the equalized assessment of the main urban area and any other considerations. The regions then can make advances to the transportation commissions and the levies against the area governments must be paid within 30 days after the regions make them.

There are an appeal and a safeguard. If that area government feels it’s paying more than its fair share of that whole transportation service or more than it feels it is getting in return, it can appeal to the OMB. In the final analysis, instead of the area and the regional government working out an agreement for transportation services, it’s all, one might say, a unilateral imposition of levies by the region on the area government with an appeal to the OMB.

I don’t know whether this system has been tried in other areas or whether it has worked satisfactorily. I know in my own community the city of Kitchener owns a transportation system and each year Kitchener and Waterloo hammer out a transportation financial arrangement. Some years we in Waterloo think we have got a good deal and other years we think we are getting taken, but what can one do? We hammer it out on an equitable basis and in the long run I think both of us are fairly well satisfied. Perhaps the minister will have a little history on how they arrived at this particular formula for the area governments to be assessed for their transportation requirements when they are outside the urban areas.

In the same particular part of the bill, the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will be deemed to be a county for purposes. of the General Welfare Assistance Act, and there is no need to repeat that provision. It will be beneficial to the regional government to be deemed a county rather than a city so that its 1964 expenses will not be deducted before the 50 per cent payment is made.

Section 4 deems a municipality to be a county for these other Acts relating to the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act and the Day Nurseries Act. As I understand it, there are very little financial implications in this. It has to do more with the method of the administration of these Acts. I believe, the province pays 80 per cent and the municipality 20 per cent. As far as I know, all the other regional bills that I could find have that provision in them now, except Ottawa-Carleton which was our first regional government bill, which was passed away back in 1970 or somewhere in there.

There is also a provision here that the regional corporation may acquire land for park purposes, which I presume brings it in line. There is control of roads by the region on any lands which are covered by an agreement between the region and a conservation authority or with the Ministry of Natural Resources, I suppose this could have far-reaching results in many areas. The control of roads by a division of government or a superior division of government, such as the region and the area government, has been somewhat of a sticky problem in many of the new regional governments because usually the control of the roads gives certain planning controls as well of 150 or 20 ft relating to those roads. This is in other bills and I suppose now brings it in line with other regional government bills.

The solid waste disposal is now transferred to the region in Ottawa-Carleton as it is in most other regional bills with which I am familiar. It’s interesting to note there are some provisions here which I think are pretty good, and I would just like to draw attention to them, Mr. Speaker. One that is in other bills too, is that after the landfill site has been filled the region must first offer that filled site for a nominal consideration to the area government where it is located.

We had this problem in our own region. The City of Kitchener had a landfill site on which it was piling garbage to make a small ski hill. When regional government was brought in it was decided in the bill that the site should be offered back to the area municipality, even though the region had taken it over until it was filled. So it is the policy now that these sites should be offered back; and I suppose they can be used for park and recreation purposes by the area governments where the landfill sites are situated.

The part that intrigued me -- and I don’t know if this is in other bills or not -- was subsection 12, where it says, “an area municipality may, by bylaw, prescribe one or more routes to be used by vehicles” when hauling the waste to the regional landfill site.

I think this is good, if there can be prior agreements on these routes. We are going through this problem in Waterloo region right now, trying to locate a landfill site. Nobody wants other people’s garbage, least of all the rural people, but that seems to be the only solution this government has been working on for the last number of years. To have designated routes for hauling, which are agreed to -- and if the bylaw is then passed the Municipal Board has to approve such bylaw before it can be enacted -- I think is a very interesting thing.

I am not familiar -- and I am sure the minister can answer the question in the next section -- with why part of the city of Thorold was annexed to the city of Welland. I suppose that was just a straightening out of the boundary or something of that nature. Here, too, we have the matter of the region being deemed to be a city for certain Acts and a county for other Acts, which has the same implication mentioned previously.

The York region evidently wants the licensing power for boarding houses at the regional level, and there is nothing much I can say on that. I do want to say something on the part that deals with the regional municipality of Waterloo.

Under this part, the regional board of health is being done away with and disbanded, and the powers formerly invested in the regional health board are now going to be taken over by the Waterloo regional council. I spoke to various council people in Waterloo region, and to a former chairman of the board of health who happened to be the Conservative candidate who ran against me in 1967, and we had a good long talk on it. We’ve been friends for a long time. He is quite certain that this is not the proper way to handle this. I have spoken to other people as well, and they say the argument -- and I think there is a certain amount of validity in the argument -- that by disbanding certain voluntary boards made up of people who serve without pay or for very little remuneration, we are losing a wealth of experience and expertise, and it’s somewhat of a shame that no one is working in the public sector now unless he gets a good salary for doing so.

Anyway, as of July 1, the regional council has taken over the health board and, the former health board is dissolved. There are many within the region who argue that here is another stone being built into the regional government bureaucracy, with more people under the regional chairman. There is a great deal of validity in that, and I am persuaded to a certain extent that this is what’s happening. The regional chairmen wanted everything in the region under the regional council which, in effect, is under the regional chairmen, which is a direct pipeline to Queen’s Park -- so I maintain and many people feel.

I have somewhat mixed feelings. In this whole matter, I think one has to come back to the basic argument of accountability and responsibility. Really, elected officials have to be accountable for the expenditures of these moneys and I think that concept outweighs the other arguments, even though we are probably going to have to hire more municipal bureaucrats. We are going to have to bring the whole regional government into a bigger -- they will spread out their networks still further, taking in yet another board and commission.

All those arguments have to be outweighed by the fact that the power must be in the hands of elected officials who, in the final analysis, are responsible to the people. We in this party have believed in that concept. Sometimes our faith in it is shaken when we see these big bureaucracies being built up at the municipal level but I don’t think the problem is in the concept. I think the problem is in the appointed regional chairmen and the structure on which these regional governments were first set up.

I had the mayor of one of our municipalities -- not my own -- say to me not long ago; “It is too bad we can’t go back to square one and start all over again and not build everything up on such a grandiose scale.” I think there are a lot of people beginning to think that about our regional governments.

There are a few questions I would like to ask regarding this transfer of the board of health from the health board to the region. First of all, what happens to the provincial appointees who were appointed for terms of two or three or five years? I presume that if they were appointed to a board which no longer exists, they suddenly cease to exist themselves.

It is rather unfortunate that our present chairman, who was appointed by the government, was also vice-president of the Provincial Association of Boards of Health. His job on the provincial association goes down the drain because, as he is no longer a member of a health board, he can no longer be vice-president of the provincial association. That’s regrettable and I feel for him in that regard because I think our board of health did a good job.

I think they did an excellent job but there seemed to be that drilling desire in our regional chairman to get everything under his wing. The only thing he hasn’t got yet is the library board and who knows --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He probably has plans for it.

Mr. Good: -- maybe within the next five years we will see library boards under the regional council. The only groups big enough so far, I think, to resist the outstretched claws of regional chairmen and regional councils have been the public utilities commissions. Boy, they are a strength of their own and the government still hasn’t figured out how to handle them because politically it’s a pretty hot potato. The government can’t get rid of them; it is going to have to let them exist.

I think they are going to have to exist as elected boards. I think the only way library boards will exist in the long run is as elected boards. The school trustees and the school boards being elected probably have a right and are doing a good job. There are even those who would imagine that we will go down the line and some day see the schools run that way. I will make no comment on that.

There are going to be a few problems, for instance, when the health board comes under the regional council. They will all be then municipal employees. There is no problem as far as OMERS goes because health board employees’ pension plans are in the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.

There will be some problems, I suppose, as far as bargaining rights and representation are concerned. As I understand, there are two union groups now within the Waterloo Regional Health Board -- the nurses’ association and the staff association. I don’t know how that will be handled, but I am compelled to say that we have to support the concept on the basis that, in the final analysis, that the power must be in the hands of elected officials. They must, in the final analysis, be responsible to the public. We have to go along with that idea.

In another few years, when our bill permits us to have a truly elected regional chairman, and when we get over there, the regional chairman will be elected by the people, not by council. He will be elected by the people at large across the region.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): The member is a dreamer.

Mr. Good: I’m a dreamer, eh? The member for Lambton doesn’t think the people should elect them.

Mr. Deans: By the time the Liberals get over there, regional government will be no more.

Mr. Good: The member doesn’t think that they should even be elected by the people. That’s interesting to know. He’s a true-blue Tory, that’s for sure.

That concludes my comments on that particular part of the bill, Mr. Speaker. There are some other matters dealing with the Sudbury part of the bill, which eliminates the ward system. I presume that this was asked by the people in that area. If it was, certainly, we can support it. There’s a bit of land going from Brantford to Mississauga in the Peel part of the bill and a small section dealing with the Haldimand-Norfolk bill. This gives the council powers to pass bylaws, as any board of commission of police is authorized to pass.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, as in most of these amended bills, I presume they are amendments that have been asked for by the municipalities. The few questions which I did ask, I would appreciate the minister commenting on them.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Riverdale wish to make any comments at this time?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the bill go into committee. Any questions we have, we’ll deal with section by section.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: I would like to recommend that to you, Mr. Speaker, in order that I may introduce an amendment regarding some of the effective dates.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Outside the House?

Mr. Renwick: No, inside.

Mr. Deans: No, no, in the House. Right here.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Deans: No, committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 101, An Act to amend the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1975.

Mr. Chairman: What section did the member for Riverdale want to deal with first? We have an amendment to section 15.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I’m satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with section 1 of the bill.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Renwick: In section 2 of the bill, why is it necessary for the council to have this authority to levy for an anticipated deficit? Why isn’t the present system an adequate method of accounting? As I read the section, I don’t quite understand how the accounting adjustment is made at the end of the particular fiscal year to account for any inaccuracy as to the estimate of the anticipated deficit.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, as has been previously mentioned, this was the system requested by the region. It’s my understanding that the system that is covered in section 2 is to look after any anticipated deficits.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Waterloo North indicate that he had a question on this one?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): No.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2 carried? Mr. Gisborn.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): No, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t just quite catch the minister’s answer to the question by the member for Riverdale. Regarding the levy that is imposed, isn’t it a question as to what method and what formula would be used to pay the levy after it is imposed? Does that not come into the question quite strongly?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this system is recommended to the House on the basis that regions have to borrow and pay excessive borrowing charges. With the levies, they can keep current and relieve themselves and their taxpayers of the cost of borrowing.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure it is ignorance on my part but perhaps the minister could explain to me -- I can understand it when you say that it’s been requested by the regional municipality, because obviously they are the ones who are going to do the levy. Does that mean it is requested by the regional municipality with the consent of the area municipalities in that particular region?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: That is correct, sir. It has been requested by the regional municipality and has the concurrence -- as a matter of fact the urging -- of some of the municipalities for us to get on with it.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Renwick: I have no comment about section 3 because the member for Waterloo North explained the purpose of that section when we dealt with the preceding bill related to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. But I would ask the minister to confirm again to me the reason for the regional corporations under section 4 being deemed to be counties for the purposes of the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act and the Day Nurseries Act.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when the Canada Assistance Plan came in in 1966, the base line was set up on the year 1964. In that year, the old system permitted a municipality such as a city to receive 50 per cent of their administrative costs under the General Welfare Assistance Act. However, if they were classified as a county and as a region in this particular case, they were enabled to receive a larger percentage.

The purpose of this section is to bring in uniformity to all of the regional Acts. Niagara and Ottawa-Carleton are the only regional municipalities that are defined as cities for the purpose of the General Welfare Assistance Act and therefore receive a provincial subsidy of only 50 per cent of costs in excess of the total welfare administrative costs in a base year.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Renwick: The minister responded to the General Welfare Assistance Act. Could he respond now under section 4 with respect to the two Acts which are referred to in that section? Is there any money involved in those? I understand funds are available to the regional corporations because of being deemed counties for the purpose of the General Welfare Assistance Act, and I accept that. Under section 4, is there any money significance to the regional corporation of Ottawa-Carleton being deemed to be a county for the purposes of the two other Acts which are referred to?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: I am advised that there is no money as far as section 4 is concerned, sir.

Section 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 5, the note obviously states that similar powers are vested in the other regional municipalities. Was the original omission of this by oversight in the Act related to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, or is there some reason for inserting it at this time?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Generally on request, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything before section 15 or are we going too fast?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo North regarding section 7, I believe, in his first remarks.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister care to respond?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: These lands are annexed from the town of Thorold to the city of Welland. This was requested by the municipalities. I believe the actual owners of the land were a fairground organization and it was a boundary error. So the purpose of this amendment is to place them all in the one municipality.

Section 7 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before section 15?

Mr. Good: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Which section?

Mr. Good: Section 11.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a few questions regarding section 11. I am wondering what prompted this. Was this asked for by the regional chairman or is this a guinea-pig experiment? I understand this is the first time in the province that a regional health board is being taken over by the council. Is this being done on an experimental basis, to be looked at as to whether it is going to be a successful operation, or is it government policy that eventually all health boards will be done away with and taken over by councils?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, this was requested as a result of a resolution by regional council and not, as indicated by the hon. member, merely at the request of the chairman. It is part of government policy, if it is at all possible, to return the administration of bodies such as this to the elected representatives in the area. I would presume that if other regions requested a similar piece of legislation it would be brought to this house, but this change definitely was requested by resolution of the regional council and it does return the powers for health matters to the elected persons.

The hon. member also asked a question regarding the persons who previously were on the board of health; they can well serve as advisers in the form of a committee if the regional municipality so desires.

Mr. Good: On that point, Mr. Chairman, is there anything in the bill requiring an advisory committee? I couldn’t see it. I think this question was discussed at home, but I don’t think there is anything in the bill requiring an advisory committee, is there?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: That is correct, sir, but if the regional council felt that they desired some expertise in these matters to take advantage of the experience of the people such as you have mentioned, we would feel that it is well within their abilities to have an advisory committee as there are in so many different parts of a regional function.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 11, I am always concerned when I see these strange provisions designed to provide protection which often appears illusory to employees.

I notice in subsections 13, 14 and 15 that on the dissolution of the health unit and the regional corporation taking over the responsibilities, that every employee of the regional board of health is to be offered employment at a salary not less than he was then receiving but only up to and including the period ending on June 30, 1976.

My first question is, are the employees of those units by any chance protected at the present time under collective agreements? Secondly, may it not be the case that some of them are employees with substantial terms of service. While I assume that the regional corporation is going to have to carry on the responsibilities which are being accepted by it on the dissolution of the local board, nevertheless there is nothing in these clauses to protect the seniority of the persons who are concerned in it. There is nothing to indicate that they will have any continuing right of employment.

I would have assumed that either there is a collective agreement -- perhaps the member for Waterloo North can tell me as to whether or not those employees are protected under collective agreement -- or there would have been a provision in this bill providing for continuity of employment as if there had been no interruption of their employment so that the persons would continue to have all the benefits of whatever period of service they had been providing, which may be of substantial period of time. Perhaps we could get some specific information from the minister about that and decide whether or not it is necessary to provide some kind of an amendment or protection.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that many of the employees are covered under a collective agreement, in which case they would suffer no ill effects from the purposes of this legislation. Those who are not covered under a collective agreement would fall in the same category as anyone else. They are at the pleasure of the council.

Mr. Renwick: I understand that part of it. A collective agreement is an agreement between two parties. Who are the parties at the present time? I would have assumed that the parties in this particular instance are the regional board of health and the particular unit which is authorized as the bargaining unit. I would have assumed if one party to the agreement was being dissolved that there should be a provision under which the successor party, the regional corporation, should take on and assume the obligations and position of the other party so that the employees would know that they had the continuing protection of the collective agreement. This bill does not say that, so far as I am concerned.

I can’t understand why the person’s rights are not continued and protected as if there had been no change and the collective agreement continued. Or is the minister saying that the collective agreement is being set aside and the employees now become members of a different bargaining unit under the regional corporation? Or is the solution something which the minister may know, namely, that there is an overall collective agreement covering not only the regional corporation employees but also the members of the regional board of health.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the very good points that are raised by the member for Riverdale are in our opinion covered in subsection 100(1) in the fourth last line in my copy, which reads: “Purposes of any agreements entered into, orders made, or matters commenced by that board and for the purposes of any proceedings.”

Mr. Renwick: Where is that?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: That would be the regional bill, section 11.

Mr. Renwick: What you are saying is that in the judgement of yourself, subsection 1 of section 100 means that the regional corporation is for all purposes the successor of the board of health and therefore is the successor as the party of the collective agreement, and that the rights of the members of that bargaining unit are not in any way affected by the dissolution and the transfer of the powers to the regional corporation.

If the minister is prepared categorically to state that, I can’t understand why we then have to have the provisions of 13, 14 and 15 in the bill other than for those employees not covered by the collective agreement.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make that commitment to the hon. member on his first question because it would certainly be the intent. If, for any reason, this doesn’t work out, I can assure you we will attempt to bring in legislation which would ensure this. I think you answered your own question, in effect, on 13 and 14.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t want to press it and I accept the minister’s assurance on the point. I would have assumed that, whatever the employee’s position was on the day of the dissolution, it should be in the same position the day after the dissolution and the assumption by the regional corporation. If that is so, he would be a continuing employee. If he is a continuing employee I can’t understand why in subsection 13 there is an offer of employment to be made to the persons who are now in the employ of the Waterloo Regional Board of Health, and the requirement that they accept the offer of employment and start a new employment.

I think there is a contradiction. I don’t think the bill intended to have it but I think the assumption, under subsection 1 of section 100, of agreements to which the board had formerly been a party by the regional corporation on the dissolution of the board is in conflict with the provision we have been discussing related to employees to which I refer specifically in subsection 13. Perhaps the minister might look into it. If I am correct, perhaps the minister’s assurance will be needed to make certain that nobody gets hurt.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 11 carry?

Mr. Renwick: The minister was going to comment.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I was merely going to mention to the hon. member for Riverdale that I am advised by the staff that what he has said is correct as far as it concerns section 1, subsection 1, which looks after those persons covered by a collective agreement. It is our hope that the problems he sees with those persons who are not covered by a collective agreement will be safeguarded by 13 and 14. I would make the commitment that if there is any problem with this, we will come back to the House on it.

Section 11 agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 12, my colleague, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), not only has the town of Capreol in his riding, he resides there. He advises me that he is satisfied with this provision of the bill and doesn’t have any comment to make on it.

Mr. Good: I thought you people were all so worried about this. How come you are agreeing?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I would have to apologize to the hon. member but I checked this out with Mr. Martel. I am sorry. I thought it was in his riding, not yours. Sorry.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Riverdale get a satisfactory answer?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 12 carry?

Section 12 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 14?

Mr. Renwick: Section 13, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I missed one.

On section 13:

Mr. Renwick: If I may, my only comment on section 13 is what is the extent of the area of land involved in this annexation which is taking place?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Did the minister check this one with the Premier (Mr. Davis) to get his okay?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I am not in the position to give the number of acres. I believe it is a very small acreage and it’s basically a problem of servicing because of the topography of the property itself.

Mr. Renwick: The only reason for the annexation is to accommodate the two municipalities which have requested the annexation for the purpose of adjusting the servicing of the lands on either side of the boundaries, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: There is an area known as the Claireville dam and reservoir lands. This is part of the problem of services because the Claireville dam and reservoir acted as a barrier.

Section 13 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 14 carried?

Mr. Gisborn: No.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry; the hon. member for Hamilton East. On section 13 or 14?

Mr. Gisborn: Section 14.

On section 14:

Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister what part of the Haldimand-Norfolk region would be classed as a city? I don’t think there is any part there at this particular time, or is the entire region deemed to be a city and we are talking strictly about the region itself?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this will cover the new municipality of the city of Nanticoke. Previously, there was no city as you are well aware; but this is the city of Nanticoke. So, in this case it would be the council of any city. In practical fact, the city of Nanticoke “in the regional area may pass any bylaws that a board of commissioners of police of a city is authorized to pass under the Municipal Act.”

Section 14 agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment here to section 15. Would the minister care to move the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Beckett moves that section 15 of the bill be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

“15(1) This Act, except sections 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Sections 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13, shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of July, 1975.

“(3) Section 6 comes into force on the 1st day of January, 1976.”

Hon. Mr. Beckett: I believe the hon. members have copies of this.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

Bill 101, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 101, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1975.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) was particularly involved in this next bill, Bill 120. Perhaps someone could inform him of this.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I think probably the member for Wentworth would allow me to speak on it, or my colleague, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Gisborn), can speak on it as well. I think I know the questions which my colleague wishes to speak about.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, I understand the city of Hamilton didn’t get their private bill in time for the private bills committee to deal with and are hereby asking for authority for the city to back a mortgage of a private company that is building an ice arena for the city. I understand there are certain provisions for this in the bill. I don’t know of any other instance where this is happening. Maybe it is permitted in some other municipalities by private legislation, but it is certainly not permitted under the Municipal Act.

In effect, what we will have here is a facility built for public use by private enterprise, with the municipality as the guarantor for considerable indebtedness. The indebtedness is for $200,000 a year for 10 years, which I suppose would work out to $2 million. The council can ask for an equity interest in the establishment or for any other security that it feels it may require. I would be interested to know what the intentions of council are when it does pass its bylaw.

Further, the bill stipulates that a bylaw cannot become effective until it has been approved by the OMB. I suppose that, in a traditional sense, in the final analysis, the safeguard for the people of Hamilton as to whether or not the city is entering into fit and proper negotiations.

I think the OMB approval is important. I understand that originally the city did not intend to include that, but that, coupled with the fact that the municipal treasurer may have access to the books of the private corporation to see, I suppose, what the financial condition of that corporation is, should provide enough safeguards to protect the citizenry.

I can understand the objections of the private corporation in not wanting to have all the company books opened for public scrutiny, but where the municipality is backing a note or mortgage and acting as guarantor for that, it certainly must have some access to the financial condition of that company.

As far as I can see from my scrutiny of the books -- I’m sure the members from Hamilton will have more information on it than I do -- it certainly would appear that with the access to the books by the municipal treasurer -- who I suppose could pass along the information to council -- and with the approval of the bylaw by the OMB, the limited term of 10 years, and the stipulation of repayment of the loan, there should be sufficient safeguards in it. It’s a new procedure and one which I suppose has a certain amount of risk attached to it, but one which I hope works out well for the city of Hamilton so that it can have a new ice arena, because many, many years ago I used to skate in that old Barton St. arena and, believe me, they needed a new one back in those days.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have some real reservations about this bill. My reservations began with a position that I took some time ago, that it has to be either a private arena or a public arena but it can’t be some sort of hybrid. That’s what we’re going to end up with in this particular kind of legislation. I’ve expressed that concern to the city of Hamilton and I’ve expressed the same concern to the taxpayers of the city of Hamilton.

If they want an arena and they need an arena -- and there’s no doubt in my mind that they both want and need one -- and if the city of Hamilton believes that it’s likely that this arena can be a paying proposition, then it should undertake to build such an arena. If they don’t think it’s going to be a paying proposition then they shouldn’t be underwriting it to the extent of $200,000 a year. That’s where I have a real problem with it, because, on principle, I think it’s wrong. I think it’s a very bad principle.

Having said that, I want to talk about the bill itself, because I’m not happy with it. Given that the principle of this bill is going to pass this House; given that the city of Hamilton is going to be given the power to guarantee, up to the extent of $200,000 a year for 10 years, an undertaking by a group of individuals who, through this point in time, have been unable to raise the necessary moneys to fund the arena; given that I know that the government intends to give them the power to do it, I then want to see the bill changed because I want somehow or other to protect the citizens of Hamilton against what may well be a big promotional push by a few individuals who haven’t given nearly enough thought to the impact or the consequences of their actions.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Was it the National Hockey League?

Mr. Deans: Oh, that’s a separate matter altogether.

I want to put on the record what the bill says just for the sake of reference, because I then want to ask some questions about it. The bill says in section 1:

“Subject to sections 2, 3 and 4, the council of the corporation of the city of Hamilton may by bylaw guarantee, on such terms and conditions as the bylaw prescribes, the repayment of a mortgage given by 263714 Management Inc. in respect of a project, being the construction of a multi-purpose ice arena to be located on part of lot 27, concession 1, formerly in the township of Saltfleet, now in the city of Hamilton.”

Mr. Good: Is that up over the mountain?

Mr. Deans: It’s not over the mountain, no. It’s in the east end of the city.

Section 2 then sets out the provisions that have to be abided by. The provisions are as follows:

“The bylaw shall provide that payments under the guarantee by the corporation of the city of Hamilton are not to exceed the sum of $200,000 for a period not to exceed 10 years, and may provide for such equity interest by the corporation of the city of Hamilton, in the project or in the company or for such other security as the council considers advisable.

“3. Where a guarantee is given by the corporation of the city of Hamilton pursuant to a bylaw passed under section 1, the Treasurer of the corporation may from time to time examine and inspect any of the books and records of 263714 Management Inc. during the period of the guarantee.

“4. A bylaw passed under section 1 does not take effect until approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board Act.”

I want to start at the bottom and work my way through it. If the corporation of the city of Hamilton passes a bylaw and that bylaw states that they will guarantee the maximum extent of $200,000 per year for a period not to exceed 10 years, they have then complied with this Act. That’s all that this Act requires of them. The Act doesn’t say they must take out any form of equity. It doesn’t say that they must take any particular specific forms of guarantees. Therefore the Ontario Municipal Board, as I understand it, would be required to deal only with whether or not the municipality had complied with the Act.

The Act specifically gives them the power to guarantee to the extent of $200,000 per year for 10 years. It does not require the municipality to undertake to guarantee in any form that it will be repaid. So anyone appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board against the municipality having taken the action and passing the bylaw, could only appeal on the basis of whether the municipality did pass such a bylaw -- and whether that bylaw was to the extent of $200,000 a year, and was for 10 years.

Mr. Good: The terms of the condition --

Mr. Deans: No, because the terms can’t make the condition of the OMB. There is no requirement on the municipality under the Act to have any terms. And therefore whatever terms are satisfactory to the municipal council are in compliance with this Act. That’s as far as it goes.

I may misunderstand something along the way, but I don’t believe the Ontario Municipal Board has the power to alter an Act. All it has the power to do is to interpret whether the municipality is complying with the Act.

Mr. Good: No.

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute.

Mr. Good: They wouldn’t use their discretionary powers before they pass a bylaw.

Mr. Deans: No, the OMB’s only function is to determine whether the bylaw is in compliance with the Act.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Oh, no.

Mr. Deans: No? I checked it out and I’m told that as long as the municipality complies with the Act by passing a bylaw --

Mr. Singer: Any bylaw, no matter what it says?

Mr. Deans: -- and if that bylaw that is passed does not contravene army section of the Act, they will then have complied.

Mr. Singer: J. A. Kennedy believed he had a mission to exercise discretion.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care about Kennedy. I’m talking about the function of the board.

Mr. Singer: A lot of people disagreed with him sometimes.

Mr. Deans: I’m talking about the function of the board as it exists today dealing with this Act. I’m not talking about its function in dealing with any other Act because there isn’t a precedent to go on. There is no precedent for this. Therefore, as long as the municipality complies with that section of the Act which says it must pass a bylaw, it can impose whatever terms it wishes. My understanding is that those terms are not then subject to review by the board because that is not a condition of the bill. It’s simply a suggestion within the bill.

I want to suggest to the minister that the bill should contain very clearly what the terms and what the provisions and what the requirements are to be. If a municipality is to go into the business of guaranteeing private funding with taxpayers’ money and if we’re going to set a precedent by allowing this to occur in the Province of Ontario, then we should make sure that the precedent that we set is one that will stand up under close scrutiny.

As I read the bill, as long as the municipality of the city of Hamilton passes the bylaw, they can set whatever terms or conditions they wish. They may or may not take equity either in the corporation or in the arena, or they may or they may not take any other security. That’s left up to their discretion and whatever security they decide to take would be well within the broad ambit of this legislation. I really don’t think that’s enough at this point.

If this was something that was being done regularly throughout the province, if this was a normal course of events within the Province of Ontario and there were some precedents to be referred to in the province with regard to other municipalities having done likewise and if there were the opportunity then for residents of the municipality to make reference to and to use those examples for presentation before the Ontario Municipal Board, if they were opposed to any section of the contract agreed to by the municipality, then we might be able to leave it as broad as the minister has left it.

I think it is too open-ended and too wide in its scope. In this instance, we should be much narrower in the scope that we’re going to afford the municipality in order that we can guarantee the taxpayers that their interest can be protected before the OMB -- not that they will be. I can’t guarantee they will be protected but I want to be sure that they can be protected. I think what we have to do is to include some phrase which says that all terms of the agreement and all terms of any guarantee or security entered into are subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board and that all terms then are subject to any individual or group of individuals who want to appeal to the OMB with regard to the appropriateness of the project or to the way in which the funding is being undertaken, that all of those terms can be put before the OMB properly. I don’t think that’s in this bill and I think that any lawyer looking at it would come to that conclusion. It’s the conclusion that I came to after consultation.

I want a guarantee that if someone doesn’t like the guarantee the city has undertaken the OMB has the constitutional authority to deal with it. I won’t to know under which of the expenditures of the municipality the OMB is going to consider this? Is it going to consider the $200,000 a year under normal expenditures or is it going to consider it as part of the capital expenditure of the municipality? Against which will it be apportioned when the board is making the determination as to whether or not the $200,000 a year up to a maximum of $2 million is to be approved within the expenditure ceilings imposed by the municipality? I would like to have an answer to that, too.

I think the names of the principals of the company No. 263714 Management Inc. should appear in the legislation because that company can change hands very quickly.

Mr. Good: That’s a good point.

Mr. Deans: I think the principals’ names should appear in the legislation I think, further, the municipalities should be required by this law to have a person sitting on the board of directors of that company.

I think further there should be a requirement of this law that there be a proper audit conducted on a yearly basis, not simply when and if the municipality desires it to occur. There should be a requirement rather than a provision which may or may not be exercised.

I think, further, the municipality should then be party to the negotiations with this management corporation, this No. 263714 Management Inc. The municipality of the city of Hamilton should be a party to any of the negotiations currently going on between this operation and money-lenders for the purposes of building that particular arena.

In other words, if we are going to be tied in to the extent of $2 million, I want to be part of the agreement and I want to be part of the negotiation. I want to know what it is that we are tieing ourselves into. I want to know who we are borrowing the money from as a citizen and as a taxpayer. I want to know what the interest payments are to be and the term of the interest payments and whether or not the interest payments are for the duration of the mortgage or whether it is a two, three, five or 10-year renewable mortgage.

I want to know that things because only then can I make a reasonable assessment of whether or not the $200,000 a year we are going to put into it is secured and safe; and whether or not it’s possible, no matter what the attractions are that appear within that arena, for the arena to be self-supporting. I think we deserve to have a part in all of that. I think it is important that those things be contained in the bill which authorizes the municipality to do this.

We should say subject to these provisions; subject to them being a party to the agreement, subject to them auditing the books, subject to all of the things I have said; if all of those provisions are met, the municipality can pass a bylaw and that bylaw shall contain all of the provisions. Everything contained within the bylaw -- let me go back -- every part of the arrangement between the municipality and this corporation shall be contained within the bylaw and everything contained within the bylaw shall be subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board.

Then we are guaranteed; at least we are guaranteed that it will be heard, at least we are guaranteed that it will be reviewed; at least we are guaranteed that if I or one of my constituents wants to make representation for or against the transaction, the part they are particularly concerned about is rightfully before the OMB. Someone can’t get up and say, “Wait a minute; there is no requirement on the municipality to do that, therefore whatever they have done is their business. The OMB has no right to involve itself in that because that is not obligatory within the legislation.” In other words, make it mandatory.

Other than that, as I say to the minister, I began with grave reservations, I end by saying the bill should be five or six pages instead of one page and I suggest that unless the minister is prepared to make those kinds of changes he is opening up a very dangerous area.

Municipalities shouldn’t be in the position of guaranteeing private loans, and that’s what they are doing. They shouldn’t be in that business at all, and the minute they get into it, then I don’t know where it ends. I frankly don’t know where it ends. I would much prefer that we could have done it differently, because I don’t think this is a very good method.

I have one final question -- I was trying to remember what it was and now I do remember -- I want to know where the municipality stands in terms of the recovery? They don’t hold a mortgage. They are simply guaranteeing to a certain extent an existing mortgage. So if they don’t hold a mortgage, where do they then stand in the event of default? How do they claim? What do they claim? Where do they stand in court if there is a default in payment by the corporation to the mortgage holder and the mortgage holder repossesses the building? What is the position of the municipality, the city of Hamilton, if and when that occurs?

Everybody tells me the fact that we now have a guarantee of a WHA franchise is somehow or other going to be the silver lining at the end of the long process. I hasten to point out that the Pittsburgh Penguins just went bankrupt. If the minister can answer those things for me, I would like the bill to go to committee, because frankly I think it is not adequate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the comments of the hon. member for Wentworth and, quite frankly, I can’t find myself in agreement with very many of the questions that he asked. I don’t think really he has discovered a new world when he asks these questions. He has just failed to look very carefully at the Municipal Act, particularly sections 64, 66 and 62. When he was casting around for precedents I don’t think he remembered -- or perhaps he wasn’t too concerned about it -- the question of hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board and the approval of the application of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for the construction of an expressway, sometimes called Spadina.

Mr. Deans: But that’s a public work; over here it’s a private concern.

Mr. Singer: Hold on, hold on; all right just hold on. The member will get chapter and verse before I am through.

Mr. Deans: Don’t compare apples and oranges.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Singer: I sat quietly while the member talked. If he wants to talk some more, go ahead and I will sit down. When I am through, I will let him talk.

Mr. Deans: I ask the member not to talk about two different matters.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview has the floor.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry I am aggravating the hon. member, but he is wrong and I must tell him that he’s wrong.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Order there, Mr. Speaker. Keep him on the topic.

Mr. Singer: What happened in the Spadina case was that there was some question about the ability of the Municipal Board to question the wisdom of the Spadina decision by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and many people believed that all they could inquire into was the financial ability of the municipality. Now Mr. Kennedy, who wrote the dissenting opinion there, based his opinion on section 62, and if we look at section 64, which refers us through section 66 and then back to section 62, Kennedy interpreted section 62 as giving the board power to inquire in any way into the wisdom and/or circumstances of the particular matter that was before it. I think he was probably right in law, even though the function of the Municipal Board hadn’t gone that far before. Let me read section 62:

“The board on any application of a municipality for approval of the exercise by a municipality of any of its powers, or the incurring of any debt or of the issue of any debentures or of any bylaw, before approving the same shall make such inquiry into the nature of the power sought to be exercised, or undertaking that is proposed to be or has been proceeded with, the necessity or expediency of the same.”

Now that covers reasons, that covers wisdom --

Mr. Deans: It says “the nature of the power.”

Mr. Singer: -- that covers financial ability; it covers all those things.

Mr. Deans: It says “the nature of the power.”

Mr. Singer: Yes, “the nature,” “the necessity” and “the wisdom.” That’s what it says. That’s the way it is written. I am not making these words up. They are there. They are in the statute. The member asks about guarantees and I draw his particular attention to section 64(5) which says:

“This section applies to the guarantee by a municipality of the debentures, bonds or other securities of any other municipality or of any other person or corporation whatsoever or of the payment in whole or in part of the sinking fund or principal of such debentures, bonds or other securities and no guarantee thereof shall be made or entered into or a bylaw on that behalf be passed by any municipality under the provisions without the approval of the board.”

That talks about guarantees and that is section 64(5).

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: All right; so then go over to 66 which refers back to section 62, so there is the power.

What the hon. member is suggesting -- and I say he is wrong -- is that this Legislature should write the whole agreement and put it in the statute. I think he is wrong in that.

Mr. Deans: The agreement must be properly a matter that can be before the OMB.

Mr. Singer: I think somewhere along the line it is important that we give to the municipalities certain autonomy. For better or for worse, the citizens of Hamilton chose their municipal council. They are there and they have certain powers. That bylaw is before us because the council, or the majority of them, asked that it come here. There are safeguards there and I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that we should write in 19 or 20 sections saying what the mortgage should be, or that the guarantee should bear such and such a date and that the interest rates should be so much and so on.

Mr. Deans: No one is suggesting --

Mr. Singer: If they are making mistakes, then the council can be called to account by the voters who put them there; but there are powers to control, there are powers of inquiry in the Ontario Municipal Board Act, and I think, in keeping with what many of us have said over a long period of time and louder in recent years, we should give more autonomy back to the municipalities. There are safeguards there in the Municipal Board Act.

Mr. Deans: No there aren’t.

Mr. Singer: The member might say no there aren’t; I say yes there are. I read him sections 64, 66 and 62 --

Mr. Deans: The fact that the member can say it loudly doesn’t make him right, it just makes him loud.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry the hon. member for Wentworth keeps on interrupting. The sections are there, and as I read them, I disagree completely, absolutely and unqualifiedly with the opinion put forward by my friend. I think he is wrong. I think those sections have to read the way they are written. They are there and there can be that kind of inquiry.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that I --

Mr. Deans: The member for Downsview is wrong.

Mr. Singer: -- believe the member has a right to get up and say he doesn’t like the bill. If he doesn’t like it, obviously he doesn’t. If he doesn’t like what his local council did that’s part of his responsibility; let him vote against it. But I say that with the safeguards, the powers and the provisions that are in the Act, citizens who are concerned can come before the Municipal Board and ask the questions the hon. member wants asked.

I don’t think it should be the responsibility of this Legislature to write the agreement; for better or for worse, the council of Hamilton has made their decision. It is here. I see nothing wrong with the bill and my colleagues and I are going to support the bill in its present form.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, I am very skeptical about the bill. The first reason is because of the way it was brought about. Out of a blue sky the proposition was put to city council that they entertain a deal with two people in the city of Hamilton -- I don’t think it’s necessary to name names. Council was to entertain the idea of selling to a consortium that is not named yet, a large piece of land in the east end of the city of Hamilton to build an arena. All of the reasons that could be given to support the deal were given by the mayor of the city of Hamilton and some supporters of the action. Only two names were given as principals in the scheme. Questions were asked about other people who might be involved as principals in the deal, but those answers haven’t been given as yet.

I am not convinced the member for Downsview is correct in his interpretation of how section 4 of this bill would work; that is a bylaw passed under section 1 does not take effect until approved with the Ontario Municipal Board, in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board Act. I have observed the public going before the Municipal Board many times in my past experience as a member. The Municipal Board is very careful about how it handles the opposition to a particular request of a municipality in this regard. The public does not have the kind of access and kind of protection under the Ontario Municipal Board Act and its references under the Municipal Act as one might assume.

The controversy has split the city of Hamilton about 50-50. When the city of Hamilton missed its opportunity to have a private bill passed because of the time limit, it was in a quandary.

The mayor arranged an appointment with the Treasurer of this province (Mr. McKeough), he met with him in a hurry, returned to Hamilton, and did his dance of glee. He was very happy about the meeting. The Treasurer was going to look after everything and everything would be fine, even though the controversy as to the kind of a deal that was propositioned has split the city of Hamilton 50-50, among both the politicians and the public in my estimation.

Therefore, the government brings forward such a bill which in a sense gives encouragement to the kind of a deal I feel is going to be perpetuated on the public in Hamilton. This kind of a bill can be used as encouragement to adopt the scheme. I think it should be taken back, should be given further scrutiny and should be tightened up in consultation with the council of the city of Hamilton as to what it really intends to do and to find out who are the principals involved in the corporation No. 263714. We want to know the answers to those questions.

I join with the member for Wentworth in the idea that we’re in favour of an arena in the city of Hamilton and not strictly because of the fact that it might have a World Hockey Association franchise but because we need an arena so that the children and the public can use it for other purposes in periods when it is not used as an ice arena.

We think the bill should have provided that the land only be leased and not sold to the consortium. That wouldn’t change the objective as put forward in any way at all. We think the equity should be perpetual on a share basis when the city of Hamilton, with the taxpayers’ money, is going to make this guarantee.

I think there should be provided in this bill an independent audit, not just letting the city of Hamilton have a look at the books. In the first place, some of those who are strongly in favour of this kind of a scheme are so strongly in favour of it they would let things go to the point where they would be paying $200,000 each year for the 10 years, and then God knows what happens from that point on. The bill doesn’t tell us if they are in default on a mortgage payment for the first two years after they get the arena built, and then they have a bonanza, that the money is paid back to the taxpayers of the city of Hamilton. There is nothing in there about that.

I am sure after all I have heard about the scheme through the two sessions it has had at city council those kinds of protections haven’t been mentioned as being built into their ideas. I am very sceptical about the proposition.

I haven’t heard from the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), as to whether this kind of a project will interfere or be interfered with by the development of the Stoney Creek circle, which is taking place in the same district. When I look at the plans for the reconstruction of the traffic circle, I can’t help but think this programme is going down the drain or there are going to be some drastic changes made to accommodate this kind of a scheme.

Has the minister looked into the kind of proposition this is on the sale of the land at about one-third of the market price? That is the proposition made by the promoters to the city council. It is not the fair market price to which the taxpayers should be entitled. Those are the kinds of questions that concern me and make me very sceptical about this kind of a proposition.

It does establish a precedent, there’s no doubt about that. In my term I remember this kind of proposition being put forward by the government to satisfy a quick idea brought forward by a part of the city council. My fears may be relieved by the fact that maybe the city council in its wisdom will find enough support to turn down the kind of proposition that’s before us at this point and strengthen the hand of the public in the city of Hamilton before the bylaw is passed. If we can do that, so much to the good. What I’m afraid of is that this kind of a bill gives strong encouragement.

As I say, the mayor went back and danced his dance of glee and said: “We’re all on our way, boys. The Treasurer has promised me that he’ll have some legislation in very shortly to establish the way for us to go ahead with this scheme.”

I think the minister should take it back and consult with others on the city council, those in opposition to this kind of scheme. There are enough there to give him some idea of their scepticism and their fears so that we can tighten op the kind of a bill that’s before us today.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, this bill has a rather peculiar history. It was the request of the Hamilton city council for a private bill. It became obvious at that time that it was not going to be able to qualify because of the time restrictions. They were not going to be able to advertise for the required time. The city of Hamilton by resolution made a request to the Treasurer asking for this authority for this project. There were many concerns shown by the Treasurer and by the staff. As a result of those concerns, the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Board were added to the bill, which the city of Hamilton did not request.

I think the problem we have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this is a request from a council composed of, as I understand it, 19 elected people representing a municipality of approximately 300,000 population. It’s their wisdom to request this piece of legislation.

The ministry has attempted to put some safeguards in the legislation and I would like to reiterate some of the points that were made previously. There is the automatic protection of sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act. The question of the equity was raised by one of the hon. members. It’s my belief that the equity is covered in the last two lines of section 2 of the bill which reads: “or in the company or for such other security as the council considers advisable.”

The other point, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that notwithstanding any general or specific Act, the OMB must approve expenditures if it goes beyond the life of a council. As you are aware, sir, this is for a period of 10 years. The Ontario Municipal Board approval is required, and if it disagrees with the terms of the agreement it can withhold approval.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in a very short way this attempts to point out the concerns of the ministry and why the protections were put in. I hope this has answered some of the questions of the hon. members opposite.

Mr. Deans: Could I ask a question? We may be able to save it from going to committee if I could ask a question.

In order to satisfy my concerns, would you consider making it mandatory that any of the equity or security arrangements and the auditing and inspection of the books become a part of the bylaw? In other words, rather than having “may be,” that they “shall be”? In order to guarantee that the OMB does have the right to see them and the people have the right to require that they be made public.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that this will be going to the Ontario Municipal Board. The other question I think is that the --

Mr. Deans: Then we have to go to committee. Let’s go to committee, because it is quite obvious I am not getting through.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Could I ask a question of the minister in connection with this bill?

Some hon. members: It is going to committee.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Should this bill go to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Deans: Committee of the whole House.

Clerk of the House: House in committee of the whole.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

House in committee on Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

On section 1:

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. I want to deal with sections 1 and 2 together, because they are tied together. I want to ask the minister --

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else want to speak on number 1 first?

Mr. Deans: I am talking to section 1, actually. It’s the terms and conditions section that I am really talking about it says: “On such terms and conditions as the bylaw prescribes.” Okay? I am talking about the beginning: “Subject to sections 2, 3 and 4, the council of the corporation of the city of Hamilton may by bylaw guarantee on such terms and conditions as the bylaw prescribes.” That is the key part as far as I am concerned.

The member for Downsview can argue all he likes, but my concern in this is that --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I’ve tried to explain it to the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: What you said before didn’t impress me either, so that’s okay.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry. You are so hard to impress.

Mr. Deans: What worries me is that if the Ontario Municipal Board were required to approve the bylaw, which is what they would be doing, we would have to guarantee that all of the terms and conditions that were being negotiated and agreed to were contained within the bylaw. That’s what I was at originally. In order that the public would have access to all of the agreements and could determine whether or not those agreements were satisfactory to them -- the public who are going to pay the bill -- we would have to guarantee that the terms and conditions are contained in the bylaw. Otherwise they could be signed separately and at some later date.

I am asking you now whether in section 2 and in section 3 you would agree to change the word “may” in the fourth line to “shall”, so that it would read:

“The bylaw shall provide the payments under the guarantee by the corporation of the city of Hamilton are not to exceed the annual sum of $200,000 for a period not to exceed 10 years and shall provide for such equity interests by the corporation or the city of Hamilton in the project, or in the company or for such other security as the council considers advisable.”

In other words, I want the bylaw to contain that. I don’t want it to be “may be in the bylaw” or “may not be in the bylaw”; I want it to guarantee that the bylaw shall contain that so the matter can go to the OMB legitimately. I don’t want somebody to argue three months from now that there was no provision in the bill which made it mandatory that that be part of the bylaw and therefore it is not properly before the OMB.

That’s what worries me. I would like to see that word changed to “shall.” I would ask also that in section 3 the word “may” in the third line also be changed to “shall” to make sure that eight years down the road the municipality still feels it has an obligation on an annual basis to audit and inspect the records and books of the management company in order to ascertain whether or not the $200,000 is being properly applied or otherwise.

I would like those two words changed. That would go a long way toward helping me to see my way through the bill.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept that as an amendment, if it makes the member feel better about it. I think the implication is there, but we are prepared to accept it and we will prepare an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: You were talking on sections 1, 2 and 3. We could proceed on to sections 4, 5 and 6. Does any other member wish to speak on them?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): I have two questions. I have a question on the answer the minister gave on second reading and I have a question under section 4. The minister explained it was a request by the city council that brought this bill about. Would the minister be able at this time to explain to me how and in what manner the request was made? Was it made officially as a request from the council or strictly from the mayor’s office; or how was that request made?

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister care to reply?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding -- and I will attempt to find the actual document itself -- that it was a council resolution. It says:

“Passed on May 13, 1975, the corporation of the City of Hamilton bylaw No. 75-133, to authorize application to the Province of Ontario for legislation respecting an arena proposed to be located on the west side of Centennial Parkway, Highway No. 20, on the south side of the Queen Elizabeth Way.”

Mr. Singer: It is more than a resolution; it is a bylaw.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Yes, the bylaw is duly signed by the clerk and the mayor and it has a covering letter.

Mr. Gisborn: Section 4 says: “A bylaw passed under section 1 does not take effect until approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board Act.” Does that mean that under the usual procedures a Municipal Board hearing can be demanded by application of a citizen of the city of Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question correctly, since this expenditure is going to take place in a period longer than the term of the council, it must go to the Ontario Municipal Board for a complete examination.

Mr. Gisborn: I am wondering if under this bill one can force a Municipal Board hearing, that is a municipal hearing in the city of Hamilton to oppose or change the original bylaw that is finally passed by the city of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it is automatic there would be a hearing. I believe that letters have already been sent to the Ontario Municipal Board requesting a hearing and the Municipal Board has sent back the word this is not before it.

Mr. Gisborn: I think you are talking about a different thing. The bylaw will go to the Municipal Board for approval, that is a bylaw passed by city council. I am wondering and want assurance that under the usual practices a citizen of the city of Hamilton can demand a hearing before the Municipal Board to oppose, contest or change the bylaws passed by the city of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the board before making any order shall hold a public hearing after such notice has been given and so on.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: May we now revert to sections 2 and 3 on which the minister had indicated there would be amendments to satisfy points raised by Mr. Deans?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Beckett moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by substituting the word “shall” for the word “may” in the fourth line.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Beckett moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by substituting the word “shall” for the word “may” in the third line.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Bill 120, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Beckett moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The main thing in this Act, Mr. Speaker, is section 8. That is the only section I want to deal with at the present time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Don’t rub the wrong way.

Mr. Good: This is the legislation which is going to permit the municipalities to pass bylaws to regulate and license the so-called body-rub parlours. Undoubtedly, it is a direct result of the need which has been created by the change which has taken place on Yonge St., a few blocks from here, in the last few years.

Some people say there is more dirt on Yonge St. now than when they dug the subway. Probably to a great extent that is correct.

The exploitation of nudity, pornography and sex has changed what was once a fine street of nice shops and good stores into a rummy section, a type of street that one hesitates to take his wife over to some of the good eating establishments which still remain on Yonge St. One is confronted with signs, large pictures of nudes and solicitors out on the street trying to get one to visit these things.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): The member means people soliciting.

Mr. Good: People soliciting, yes. There is no doubt in my mind that the lucrative monetary return coupled with the lack of proper legislation to control this type of thing has resulted in encouraging the growth of these questionable, and to many of us objectionable, establishments.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The Minister of Health should have been doing this.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): What will the Minister of Health do with them?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I will inspect them.

Mr. Good: The legislation before us today is to permit the municipality to pass bylaws to control these so-called body-rub parlours. This has now been put out as part of this Conservative government’s new emphasis focusing public attention on the excesses of violence, of permissiveness and the need for new law and order.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): That is what Richard Nixon said, “law and order.” Remember what happened to him?

Mr. Good: In my view, if the Premier (Mr. Davis) had any deep feelings on permissiveness, something would have been done long ago and Yonge St. wouldn’t be in the state of decadence that now exists. That’s exactly how I feel about it.

Some municipalities have tried on their own to do something about it. The city of Kitchener passed a bylaw under section 368 of the Municipal Act -- subsection 2 I think it was. They had to include into their licensing arrangement all registered masseurs. This was not a very healthy situation, but it was the only authority they could find which they thought would give them bylaws that would stand up in court. They have licensed establishments of this nature and they have cancelled licences under this basis. The city of Ottawa attacked it from a different source from the health studio section.

There has also been opinion that under section 242 of the Municipal Act, municipalities would have had an opportunity to pass bylaws. That section, Mr. Speaker, reads:

“Every council may pass such bylaws and make such regulations for the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality in matters not specifically provided for by this Act as may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law for governing the proceedings of the council, the conduct of its members and the calling of meetings.”

Some municipalities were on the verge of trying to control these establishments under section 242 of the Municipal Act. Whether or not they would have been successful is questionable because certain powers required for their control evidently would not be enforceable under that section of the Act.

I believe quite strongly, Mr. Speaker, that there should have been provincial legislation in this area some time ago. I think the province has been negligent in not bringing in provincial legislation or not threatening these establishments with provincial legislation. It’s a funny thing to me that a minister can utter a few words and he can get the chain stores to back off using credit cards for grocery purchases; or he can utter a few more words and get them to back off computerized scanners for the pricing of groceries. But the Premier of this province sat silent and did nothing to either alarm or scare these operators with provincial legislation. In the last analysis, we get a watered-down version which allows the municipalities to pass bylaws to regulate these. It should be a provincial responsibility, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Haggerty: Like a noise bylaw.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): What about Bracebridge? What about the local autonomy issue?

Mr. Good: -- so that there would be regulations all across this province. It’s going to take some pretty sophisticated bylaws to regulate these establishments in the various municipalities across the province, and I’ll get into that a little later, Mr. Speaker. In my view, there must at least be, accompanying this bill, an all-encompassing model bylaw so that the municipalities will know what they’re up against in trying to regulate these establishments.

There are some deficiencies, I feel, in the sections which give the municipality power, and I would just like to speak a moment on that.

The municipalities are given power to pass bylaws to provide for regulating the placement, construction, size, nature and character of the signs, advertising and advertising devices posted or used for the purpose of promoting body-rub parlours. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we all know just by walking up Yonge St. that the signing and the advertising is very objectionable to the pedestrian. Even Shriners visiting town all this week have said they are amazed the city would allow such objectionable signs up and down what used to be the finest street in the nation, I’m sure.

Bylaws may be passed which allow for the licensing, regulating, governing and inspection of body-rub parlours and for the revoking and suspension of those licences.

I suggest that particular section does not go far enough. I believe not only that the establishments have to be licensed -- I hope the minister gives this serious consideration before we get into committee and that he will consider amendments -- but that all the operators and employees of those establishments should be licensed. I think that is most important for reasons I will get to a little later.

There must not only be powers to license the establishment but there must be powers to license the employees. There must be powers in here to look into the character and the criminal records of the owners, the employees, the shareholders and anyone connected with this type of operation. All hon. members will have read the reports in the newspapers indicating that the whole sex business on Yonge St. could very well be in the hands of organized crime, that they are trying to get into it. This is something which I think has to be given very serious consideration. Only by licensing and looking into the character of everyone connected with these establishments are we ever going to clean them up.

I know there would be a great constitutional hassle if the legislation were such that it tried to prohibit them. I understand from my lawyer friends that undoubtedly there would be a constitutional hassle as to whether or not the province would have the authority to outlaw them completely, but under the legislation the municipality can restrict the numbers. I suppose as long as you allow only one you would comply with the bylaw and you would not be prohibiting them; they might get away with that.

I certainly believe there must be guidelines laid down in a model bylaw as to how these establishments should be controlled, because in my view the exploitation of nudity, sex and pornography along Yonge St. is being promoted because of the huge monetary gains involved with it. While we have laws prohibiting the procuring of money by living off the avails of prostitution, we have no laws for people who are living off the sex, pornography and nudity business that goes on in many of these places.

The newspaper reports have given a pretty accurate picture, I think, of what goes on. One report a few weeks ago stated that 2,200 people were demanding that body-rub parlours be closed in Scarborough. An article in yesterday’s Star stated that some who feel they are legitimate operators have banded together and they want to sit down and find ways to clean up because they feel they are operating a pure operation. At one place in the article, I believe, one owner said he believed there could well be prostitution going on in some of the other establishments.

The bylaw which I think would clean up the whole situation is probably best described in what is now a city ordinance in the city of Lewiston, Idaho.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to adjourn the debate at this juncture, Her Honour awaits to give royal assent to certain bills.

Mr. Good: I will do that. I am supposed to be in a committee at 8 o’clock, but I will adjourn the debate now.

Mr. Good moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

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

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

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

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

Bill 45, The Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Bill 75, An Act to reform certain Laws founded upon Marital or Family Relationships.

Bill 86, An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies.

Bill 92, An Act to amend the Mechanics’ Lien Act.

Bill 93, The Ministry of Transportation and Communications Creditors Payment Act, 1975.

Bill 94, An Act to repeal the Public Works Creditors Payment Act.

Bill 101, The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 106, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Bill 113, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Bill 114, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 120, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

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

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

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 107, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The intent has to be that bylaws passed by the municipalities must be so rigid, so easily enforced and so without doubt that only operators will be able to stay in business who are known to comply with these bylaws 100 per cent. This is going to mean a great deal of detail in the bylaws. Many things, I think, are held out in the bylaws of the municipality of Lewiston, Idaho, which I think would pretty well eliminate body-rub parlours altogether. The major feature of the bylaw of that municipality is they just don’t permit nudity. We are not going to have body-rub parlours if we don’t allow nudity in them any more than we would have horse racing if we didn’t have betting.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Or horses.

Mr. Good: Or horses, as the member for Kitchener says.

Let’s go over briefly some of the salient features of this bylaw which I think would be rigid enough to clean up the act, so to speak.

For instance, not only would the establishment he licensed but each employee would have to be licensed and I think that is important. The names and addresses of the people working in the establishment have to be filed with the municipal clerk or licensing bylaw officer at the city hall; and then there are certain requirements, such as a certificate of health from a physician certifying that the applicant does not have any communicable disease. The name and residence address of each applicant has to be on file for each partnership and each shareholder in the establishment. In addition the character of that person would have to be looked into and I think that’s important.

We require that, Mr. Speaker, in many other areas; for the formation of a loan or trust company, for example. The Loan and Trust Act allows the registrar to look into the character of the people establishing that type of business. I think that is most important in this particular type of business, not only for the proprietors but, as I have said before, for all those operating.

Another provision in this bylaw which is interesting is a prohibition against any type of room or cubicle being locked within the establishment. At all times the police enforcing bylaws would have access to the establishment without any delay as far as it concerns getting in to check whether the bylaws are being complied with.

A written declaration by the applicant under penalty of perjury that the information contained in the application is true and correct would have to be signed and dated within that city. The municipality would be given a reasonable length of time in which either to reject or grant a licence.

The bylaws go on in great detail regarding the making of false statement. The age of anyone working in the establishments is spelled out as a minimum age of 18 years. There will be no transfer of licensing without proper authority from the licensing body. In another section in this bylaw, Mr. Speaker, it says:

“Every person who operates a massage establishment or practises or provides these services at all times shall keep an appointment book in which the name of each and every patron shall be entered, together with the time, date and place; and the services provided. Such appointment book shall be available at all times for inspection by the police chief or his authorized representative.”

Now it is interesting to note that is one of the provisions in the city of Kitchener bylaw. I was told, with no reflection on the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith), that there are more “John Smiths” listed on the books than anyone else.

Mr. Reid: He is a busy boy.

Mr. Good: Perhaps the analogy was not good.

But I think that point is important, because the whole idea of licensing is to either clean them up or get them out of business entirely. In my view, I think the bylaw should be drafted in such a manner that they would soon be out of business.

And then details must be given as to the construction of the establishment. I think all these things are important regarding cleanliness and the matter of the rooms. No rooms may be locked and at all times they must be available for inspection. And it also says:

“No person shall publish or distribute or cause to be published or distributed any advertising matter or business identification card that states or depicts any portion of the human body that would reasonably suggest to prospective patrons that any service is available other than a massage as defined under the section of this ordinance.”

And this is one of the great fears in connection with the establishments, that they are a front for other activities.

The prohibition of nudity in these bylaws, I am sure, would be sufficient to force the closure of them if they are undesirable; and most people agree with me that they are undesirable. They have spelled it out in the bylaws, and I think this is important. They have proclaimed it is unlawful for certain parts of the body to be exposed; this is spelled out in great detail. These provisions are very rigid for those municipalities that really mean business.

If the Premier has as one of his great priorities to do something about permissiveness in our society, he would have tackled the problem years ago before it had reached the proportions that now exist.

Mr. Speaker, I think the ministry should give an undertaking today that it will prepare a model bylaw which would be very rigid and encourage the municipalities to use it.

I would also hope that the ministry would amend this Act to give the municipalities the power not only to license the establishment but all persons employed therein. I think that is most important; that the establishment be licensed and its employees registered with a municipality, and further that municipalities should be given some direction in the form of a model bylaw so that rigid controls can be placed on them. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all it is refreshing to see a Speaker from northern Ontario sitting in the seat of the mighty --

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Pretty knowledgeable Speaker.

Mr. Young: -- a portent of things to come.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He was interested in the drainage business.

Mr. Young: I hope that in the next session of the House northern Ontario will find its place in adjudicating the debates of this House.

Mr. Reid: I don’t want the job. No, I don’t want it.

Mr. Ruston: I understand he is moving to the far side so we may appoint him that.

Mr. Bounsall: He is in training to be the permanent Speaker in the next House.

Mr. Young: All right; whichever one of the three groups makes the government -- minority or otherwise as the case may be -- after the election we hope this kind of recognition will come to northern Ontario. In the meantime let me congratulate you, sir, upon this exalted position and wish you well in your adjudication of this very fiery debate here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Reid: That is as close as he is going.

Mr. Young: As far as the principle of the bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the first section perhaps cleans up a bit of the bill we were discussing prior to this. It does give the municipalities a chance to demand certain security in respect to loans they may guarantee. I think that is good and perhaps this is something which should be considered in the other bill.

Section 5, I suppose, is indicative of the kind of help which municipalities may offer to people who have reached the age of retirement or beyond, but it doesn’t say so. It says:

“Notwithstanding paragraphs 55 and 57 for providing for the clearing away and removal of snow and ice at the expense of the municipality from the sidewalks and the highways in front of, alongside, at the rear of buildings owned or occupied by any class or classes of persons, and from those portions of walkways between the highways and the public sidewalks on highways as the case may be.”

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be a bit happier if the legislation designated the classes of persons meant here. It might well be that a municipality, if it was not too afraid of the voters, might designate that all aldermen might be a class of persons in this respect; or members of the Legislature.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Pretty short term.

Mr. Young: Or anyone that may be well favoured. It seems that if we mean older people or senior citizens or people above the age of 65, this might well be written into the bill and the bill say so.

Certainly the provisions of the bill which empower regional governments to make grants in certain cases, such as public libraries and other grants which up to this point have been the prerogative of the municipalities themselves -- that is, the small municipalities -- I think are good and should be supported.

As far as we are concerned, the body-rub section of the bill has been well dealt with by the member who has just spoken. I think, by and large, we agree with what he has said. Evidently he has done a great deal of research in this field and we congratulate him on the results of that research. In asking members of this Legislature about this thing and what should be done about it, I couldn’t find a single one who had ever been in a body-rub parlour.

Now that is rather a record for an august body like this, but it is good to know that we are discussing something here today on which there is 100 per cent lack of actual experience. We read about it in the newspaper and we quote newspaper articles; we quote authorities but we just don’t know.

This is a kind of activity which has been in operation as long as the human race existed -- and I suppose it wouldn’t exist without it -- but it is the kind of activity, the prostitution of the sexual activity of the human race, which is being dealt with here. I don’t suppose that anywhere in the world any civilization has ever come to actual grips with the problem. It depends on the moral standards of the civilization. It depends on what they consider right or wrong. Certainly you can go back to some of the ancient civilizations and they had very little moral concern with this sort of thing; it was taken for granted.

Some countries, of course, simply license prostitution and leave it at that. You can go to Canal St. in Amsterdam or the Heinrichstrasse in Hamburg, or Soho; these places where you have licensing for activity like this. It’s taken for granted that it is perfectly all right, but regulate it. However I don’t think that we in Ontario are ready for that step now, if ever.

One thing the hon. member for Waterloo North mentioned which I agree with completely is that if we are going to have legislation which regulates body-rub parlours then we should think in terms of provincial legislation.

If we give the city of Toronto power to regulate these establishments, and they say we are going to limit them to one, two, three, or we are going to put certain restrictions around them so the blatant operators no longer can carry on along the Yonge St. strip or in the other places where they are operating today, then those same operators will simply go outside the borders of the municipality. This is the way the shopping plaza operators did in years past -- they built just outside and brought their customers from the thickly-populated areas. In this way the problem is only transferred to the border municipalities.

I think the concept of provincial legislation is a good one and one which the minister really ought to think about.

I also think the member’s suggestion about the patron books -- that is if they are inspected regularly -- would be one of the things which would scare off a lot of customers. But again, the customers would have to bring birth certificates with them, I suppose, to make sure the name’s compared on the birth certificate with the name that is going into the book.

So, Mr. Speaker, by and large we agree with the legislation. We will vote for it on second reading. There are some questions we want to ask when it goes to committee, but these are the remarks that I have to make about it at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to engage in the debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to make clear that though this legislation was requested by Metro Toronto, it is for all municipalities. This theme seems to have come up several times.

There has also been a question of some of the powers within it. I would like to indicate to members that the amendment does not enable municipalities to ban body-rub parlours. Such a power is considered to be a criminal law power which only the federal government may exercise.

There are many other powers in this bill which will benefit municipalities. They all have been requested by municipalities. The member for Yorkview mentioned the question of the removal of ice and snow from sidewalks where the occupants have not been able to do this job themselves. I think it is our feeling that under local autonomy they will only use this power for the aged and the infirm and so on, and not for elected officials as he facetiously indicated.

The other item in the bill empowers counties to prohibit heavy vehicle traffic on county roads. This has been requested many times by county councils so that they could have a measure of control over noise pollution from motor vehicles and a means also of reducing wear and tear on the roads.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this bill would go to committee of the whole House because there is an amendment I would like to present.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this bill is to go to committee then?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: Order for House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 107, an Act to amend the Municipal Act.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 form part of the bill?

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Chairman, on section 1, will the minister explain to me or confirm my feelings that section 1 does provide for the subject that we dealt with in Bill 120, but strengthens the questions that were raised as to the guaranteeing of the loan and the loan being made a debt that could be collected and recollected?

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I believe this is necessary here because we did have an earlier Act this year which gave municipalities the authority, subject to section 248, to make grants to any person, institution, association, group or body of any kind, including a fund, within or outside the boundaries of the municipality for any purpose that, in the opinion of the council, is in the interest of the municipality.

The hon. member raises a question that I think is consistent with the previous bill. It was a decision of the solicitors that the present provisions could not look after the city of Hamilton’s request because of the commercial aspect of the development.

Mr. Gisborn: Do I understand then that this amendment does not look after the situation in Bill 120?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: That’s correct, sir.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, does the requirement for ministerial approval for the termination of pension plans protect the employees? Are they given full protection here? Is this the purpose of this?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, it’s the purpose of a lot of the legislation to remove the requirement for approval of the minister, as you’re well aware, but in this particular case it’s my understanding there is now an Ontario Pension Commission; they are specialists in this matter and must scrutinize all applications for changes and so on. It’s a specialized group to handle these pension problems.

Mr. Young: They take over, in effect.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman: Anyone else on section 2?

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I’m not clear as to what this means as a change in the taxation of telephone companies. I wonder if the minister would give us a little clearer explanation of what all this means? Does it increase or decrease the taxation rate? Does it change it?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Is this section 3, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Young: Yes, section 3, dealing with taxation of telephone companies.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, as you’re well aware, and I think all members are too, we’ve had a great deal of difficulty with private telephone company legislation. The purpose of this amendment really is to clarify the problems that have resulted from the last legislation that we brought in.

Mr. Young: That really clears up nothing, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: There was a similarity in words --

Mr. Young: It’s a different base of taxation here, I understand.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Well, it clarifies who will be taxed. If you place a call from a small, independent company, then that call is carried by the big chain and so on; this will now clarify the basis of the tariffs. The tax can’t be levied against both, I believe. This will clarify the point that the tax will be on what I described as the big chain, and not the small company.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an amendment on section 5?

Hon. Mr. Beckett moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“3. Paragraph 126 of subsection 1 of the said section 354 as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1972, chapter 124, section 10, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“‘126. For prohibiting or regulating signs and other advertising devices and the posting of notices on buildings or vacant lots within any defined area or areas or on land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway and any bylaw passed under this paragraph may provide that a sign or other advertising device that was lawfully erected or displayed on the day the bylaw comes into force but does not comply with the bylaw shall be,

“‘(a) made to comply with the bylaw, or

“‘(b) removed by the owner thereof or by the owner of the land on which it is situate, on or before the expiration of five years from the date the bylaw comes into force.

“‘126(a) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may define a class or classes of signs or other advertising devices and may specify a time period during which signs or other advertising devices in a defined class may stand or be displayed in the municipality and may require the removal of such signs or other advertising devices which continue to stand or be displayed after such time period has expired.

“‘126(b) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may require the production of the plans of all signs or other advertising devices to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired and provide for the charging of fees for the inspection and approval of such plans and for the fixing of the amount of such fees and for the issuing of a permit certifying to such approval and may prohibit the erection, display, alteration or repair of any sign or advertising device where a permit has not been obtained therefor and may authorize the refusal of a permit for any sign or other advertising device that if erected or displayed would be contrary to the provisions of any bylaw of the municipality.

“‘126(c) A bylaw passed under paragraph 126 may authorize the pulling down or removal at the expense of the owner of any sign or other advertising device that is erected or displayed in contravention of the bylaw and may require any person who,

“‘(a) has caused a sign or other advertising device to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired without first having obtained a permit to do so, or

“‘(b) having obtained a permit has caused a sign or other advertising device to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired contrary to their approved plans in respect to which the permit was issued, to make such a sign or other advertising device comply with the bylaws of the municipality if it does not so comply or to remove such sign or other advertising device within such period of time as the bylaw specifies.’”

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Chairman, this legislation has been requested by municipalities for some time in order that they may control what has been to them a problem of this type of signing. It is at the urging of the municipalities that this legislation is being brought in at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone care to speak to this?

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I have just received a copy of this amendment. It is perhaps a little difficult to take it all in, but if I could ask a question just before 6 o’clock -- I understand that the municipality “may” pass, this is permissive legislation regulating signs. A municipality must, I guess, give five years for signs to be brought into compliance with the bylaw, but does it also mean that any sign which is now erected must, as of the date the bylaw comes into force, be licensed and pay a licence fee? Does this hold for signs already erected?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: No.

Mr. Young: That is, the signs there now may go for five years and if they are not brought into compliance they have to be removed and a new ball game starts at that point?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: It being 6 o’clock, I think perhaps we could call a halt. It would give the members an opportunity to look at this amendment.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m. the House took recess.