The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the members for Rainy River (T. P. Reid) and Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked questions concerning nuclear fuel waste management. At that time I undertook to describe the present status of the program and Ontario’s involvement in it.

As honourable members will recall, the Canada/Ontario Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program was announced on June 5, 1978. Under that program the federal government, through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, has undertaken to develop and demonstrate a safe and suitable method of disposal of nuclear fuel waste. Ontario Hydro is responsible for studies on interim storage and transportation of irradiated fuel. The primary responsibility for developing and demonstrating a safe and suitable method of disposal of nuclear fuel waste rests with the federal government and AECL.

AECL’s objective in its current research program is to measure the properties of various rock types in order to assess the feasibility of disposing of nuclear fuel waste in a deep underground mine.

To ensure continuous close co-operation and consultation between the two governments and their agencies, a Canada/Ontario nuclear fuel waste management co-ordinating committee has been established with a chairman from AECL and representatives from Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Ministry of Energy and the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

As my predecessor stated, Ontario approval of initiatives taken under this program is required. To effect this, a step-by-step approval process has been established. Attached to this statement is a series of charts that set out the various steps in the approval process.

As honourable members will note, the concept-verification phase which AECL now is in involves a review of the 1,500 or so rock structures -- or plutons, as they are called. From among these 1,500 rock structures in 13 regions of the province, eight to 10 research areas are to be drilled to identify the most “suitable types” of rock.

Once these suitable rock types have been identified, AECL will then identify up to 100 plutons with comparable rock characteristics.

At this stage -- the site selection phase -- AECL will then invite the local communities located near the 100 plutons to express whether they are interested in AECL demonstrating nuclear waste storage in their area. This will be done to select a single demonstration site. This phase is at least three to four years away.

In brief, the first approval step in the concept-verification stage is for a public information program to be initiated in a region. Second, approval is required for a community relations program in a proposed research area. Third, approval is required for field research at specific locations in a research area.

Typical field research activities by AECL will involve collecting surface samples, examining surface features and drilling to obtain information on properties of rocks at various depths. Drilling should not be taken as an indication that the research area will necessarily be considered as an eventual waste repository.

I understand a number of honourable members have already been briefed by AECL including the members for Rainy River, Kenora (Mr. Bernier), Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle).

Similar briefings have taken place with some members of Parliament and with municipal councils. For any member who has not been briefed and who would wish to be, I would be most happy to arrange for AECL to give a special briefing.

Ms. Gigantes: Aren’t there any plutons in Leeds?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In keeping with the approval process, AECL has presented, and Ontario has approved, proposals for public information programs in the Rainy River region, Kenora region and Leeds-Grenville-Lanark-Renfrew region, and proposals to conduct community relations programs in the Atikokan and White Lake areas. We have not as yet received any proposals from AECL to carry out test drilling or other field research activities in any area.

A press report last week stated AECL had proposed that it conduct field research including test drilling in the Atikokan area, that it expected approval of this proposal from Ontario within the next week and that drilling would begin within two weeks. This news report was not accurate and has subsequently been corrected. Ontario has not yet approved research drilling near Atikokan, although I understand the Atikokan municipal council supports such drilling, as does the member for Rainy River.

Before Ontario’s approval is given, the Ministry of Energy will obtain and assess the views of the other ministries involved.

Apart from the Atikokan area, AECL has not yet identified any other research area in which it would like to do research drilling.

Ms. Gigantes: You’ve already been drilling.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO LOAD FORECASTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy related to the announcement by Ontario Hydro of its stretchout of its generating program to 1990. Has the minister looked at this announcement by Hydro? Is the minister and his government prepared to accept Hydro’s statement, since it does in fact bring the system into rough balance by 1990 if Hydro’s 4.7 per cent forecast is accepted? If the Ministry of Energy’s forecast of 3.7 to 1985 and 2.2 thereafter is accepted, we will still be left with an excess of close to 3,000 megawatts by 1990 and that will of course represent a tremendous expense. Is the minister going to accept Hydro’s view, or is he going to accept the view that came from within his own ministry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I explained at some length the difference between the Ministry of Energy’s energy model and the Hydro forecast. In fact, as the honourable member has pointed out, in electricity they are virtually the same until 1985, when our forecast drops in terms of electricity. However, I pointed out we were looking at all forms of energy and there were a number of variables.

Mr. S. Smith: Why can’t you include those variables?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Neither our model nor the Hydro forecast used the same parameters, and consequently they aren’t really comparable. That’s perhaps the long way of saying I think the government is prepared to accept what I have read in the press release and which I understand is to complete Atikokan in a longer time frame and to do the same in Darlington and Bruce.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the minister appears ready to accept Hydro’s 4.7 per cent load growth forecast even in view of lower forecasts both within his own ministry and in other neighbouring jurisdictions, can the minister tell us what provision there might be should it become clear as years go by that Hydro is excessively optimistic? What provisions might there be for further stretch-out so the balance will occur even later? Can he tell us the penalty costs incurred as a consequence of accepting Hydro’s present plan and present forecast and then discovering three years hence, for instance, that it was too optimistic?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The answer to that would be it would depend how far it was out as to what penalties there might be. I understand from Hydro that in most but not all of the program there is a degree of flexibility built in which could be even more flexible or could be speeded up if the forecasts are too low.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary Mr. Speaker:

Can the minister say whether the Ministry of Energy gave any formal or informal instructions to Ontario Hydro with regard to the deferral of its construction program or was this a matter that was left completely up to Ontario Hydro with no input or no sense of overall policy injected by the Ontario government?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I mentioned there were meetings between Energy staff and Hydro management personnel. I had discussions with the chairman and wrote him a letter, of which I have a copy here. Without reading the whole letter, though I would be delighted to send a copy of it to the member if he doesn’t already have one, I said on April 4 to the chairman:

“You have told me that the Hydro board at its meeting on April 9 will be reviewing proposed adjustments to a generation program in order to assure itself that it is the best possible and to meet its predictions as to future electricity demands in the province, and that its generation plans and its transmission plans are integrated as well as possible with particular regard to the timing of coming into service of both stations on line. The board will, I know, want to give most careful consideration to the risk that would be involved in any decision that was predicated on too short a timetable for the public participation hearing and governmental approval processes.”

I then mentioned the situation regarding the routing of a second plant out of Bruce and of a high voltage east-west tie line in the north. I said: “Obviously, it would be inappropriate for me to make any assumption as to when such processes could be completed or as to whether government approval would be granted. I had been informed of the discussion on this question that has taken place between the staffs of Ontario Hydro and my ministry and I must say that, in my opinion, it would be safer to err on the side of the processes taking a longer time than appears to have been anticipated by Ontario Hydro’s staff.

“In conclusion, I regret that I am unable to give the Hydro board any assurance that the public participation and hearing processes, as well as government consideration of any requests to build either of these transmission lines, could be carried through and completed in time to permit Ontario Hydro to meet the proposed in-service dates of 1986 and 1987 for these lines.”

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that Hydro’s new econometric model, which is supposed to be the most sophisticated method of energy forecasting, showed a growth rate actually of 2.6 per cent and that it was a judgemental decision on the part of the forecaster which ended up at 4.7. Is he aware that the 2.6 per cent is very much in line with the forecast in all of our neighbouring utilities, such as Detroit Edison and Power Authority of the State of New York? As a result of that kind of consideration, would he now not agree that the time has come for the government to be in a position to impose a policy framework on the operation of Ontario Hydro in order to consider such contingencies as those we are faced with at the present time, such as the flexibility of contracts and this anomaly over the growth rate?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I would answer by saying that in the remarks of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) a couple of weeks ago, when he was talking about Hydro’s program, he said it would be better to err on the surplus side than have a shortage. In my own view, and in the view of Hydro’s forecasters as I recall it being reported in the press, it is difficult to predict. He said you could have the most sophisticated system in the world, but it was a very dicey process trying to forecast 12 and 15 and 20 years ahead.

It would seem to me Hydro’s present position, as indicated in the chairman’s statement in their press release, was set out on the second page where he says: “The board’s decision to extend construction schedules for three committed plants means that in-service dates will be rescheduled to gradually bring capacity into phase with projected electricity demands. It will provide an orderly transition to meet lowered expectations in electricity demands while attempting to minimize economic impacts on industry and employment.”

And further: “The board’s decision today will result in reduced generating capacity by the mid-1980s, as well as reduced capital requirement.” That is not to be interpreted to mean reduced from the present level, but reduced from the projected level.

Mr. J. Reed: What if they are wrong again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are never wrong.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he can provide this Legislature with the penalty costs for the cancellation of Darlington now, as compared with the penalty costs we will be into if he and Hydro decide it should be cancelled next year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t answer that question because I can’t predict what may happen.

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR HANDICAPPED; COMFORT ALLOWANCES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the minister stated, and it is in Hansard here, that the fare for such services -- we were referring to transportation services for the handicapped in Hamilton -- is 50 cents per trip. Can the minister explain how it is she is so misinformed on a fundamental matter of this kind? Is she not aware it costs $4.50 for a disabled person to travel from Chedoke Hospital to Bold Street in downtown Hamilton and back, and for the same trip in the evening the cost is $21 per hour or $42 per two-hour trip? Given that information, can she explain how she could have been so misinformed on this matter?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition implies that I am misinformed, I think he was certainly misinformed yesterday when he put the total cost of the comfort allowance at the transportation cost for the disabled.

There is a program that has been implemented after the five pilot projects across the province were very carefully evaluated; Hamilton has applied to be a part of that program. The rules set down by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications leave the rules to be applied as they regard the fares to the local municipality. The suggestion has been made that the fares be in line with the fares charged to those using the ordinary transportation services. Those same rules will apply to Hamilton when they put in force the new program of transportation for the disabled.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, with all the tax credits and so on, is the minister not aware that from a person who at present is confined to a wheelchair and receiving, for instance, $150 a month alimony, her friend the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is now going to take away $99 of that and, via tax credit at the end of the year, give back the princely sum of $19?

As I have told the minister, under municipal regulation and local regulation by the DARTS people it costs $42 just to go downtown in the evening and back. Does she not recognize the need for a special provision in her comfort allowance for people who are confined to wheelchairs, but who are sufficiently mentally alert they ought to be able to maintain some contact with the community and with ordinary life, as opposed to those who are not in a position to do so?

Does the minister not see a distinction that needs to be drawn there to help these particular people who are now being punished by the chronic-care co-payment fee, a fee that in other circumstances might be considered reasonable?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There are special programs to provide for the special needs of those people who are found to be in circumstances where it is difficult for them to arrange for their own transportation. I would also like to remind the honourable member that these patients are not without family, they are not without friends and they are not without voluntary organizations --

Mr. Cassidy: Always?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- that are very involved in helping to support and provide some of these services.

Mr. Warner: You are always so satisfied to hand out crumbs.

Ms. Gigantes: Lady Bounty.

Mr. Samis: The government is giving away $100,000,000 to the pulp and paper companies.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think it is totally unfortunate that the honourable member focuses on a few of the people who have these particular problems that we try to meet through very special kinds of programs of help.

Mr. Warner: The whole loaf to the corporations and crumbs to the citizens.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: What we are doing is providing the $6 increase to those people who receive all of their basic needs. These are all looked after, including free drugs. They are also the beneficiaries of many of the voluntary programs that go on within those institutions.

Ms. Gigantes: Living off the fat of the land, aren’t they?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The discretionary part of their income -- and they are not all able to use that money -- is to maintain their self-respect by being able to buy their papers and meet other personal needs. As far as we are concerned, with the tax credit, this enables them to do just that.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Since the comfort allowance, which is all that is left to senior citizens in homes for the aged of their pension income, which is theirs by right, is expected to cover all of their personal, social and recreational needs, their clothing and their sundries, would the minister like to tell us and maybe the senior citizens of Ontario what commodities they will be able to buy with the government’s increase of a nickel a day?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: As usual, the honourable member exaggerates to the point of pure nonsense. That’s strictly nonsense, just absolute nonsense.

Mr. Wildman: How much is it per day?

Mr. McClellan: Five cents a day.

Mr. Breithaupt: Twenty cents a day.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he says five cents and it is 20, how far out are you? Do your mathematics.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It seems to me that many members have been recipients of a petition from people in some of the homes of aged from across this province asking for a $5 increase in their comfort allowance. The recipients themselves, the ones members opposite are so quick to announce need so much more, have said, “$5 is very reasonable and all we expect.”

Mr. Foulds: They said that was a minimum.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, they did not.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, they did.

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker: Now that the minister is corrected in her notion that it costs only 50 cents to make these trips and understands the cost to be $42 in an evening, may I ask the minister if she will agree to come with me to meet the wheelchair patients at the Chedoke chronic hospital to explain to them why she has to take away their alimony and the meagre pension they may have, the insurance that they use at present to go downtown? Would she come with me to explain it and would she explain it only to the 50 per cent of them who have no family remaining interested in them, as she seems to think people have?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will be delighted to accept the honourable member’s invitation, if at the same time he agrees to attend with me many of the senior citizens’ institutions that I visit so that he can see how many of the people in them are very happy with the circumstances they find themselves in.

Mr. S. Smith: That is a deal.

Mr. Warner: She would steal Tiny Tim’s crutch.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, arising out of the announcement today by Ontario Hydro of the deferral of its plans for the generating station at Darlington. Now that Hydro has admitted there is no immediate and pressing need for the nuclear power plant at Darlington and has deferred the plant by 18 months, will the minister order the Darlington power station to be reviewed under the Environmental Assessment Act from which it was exempted a couple of years ago, and will he ensure that the review extends to the need for the project and to alternatives for the project, as mandated under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain his refusal to order that, in view of the fact that in the first place he is the minister responsible for ensuring that the Environmental Assessment Act is a reality in the province and not just a paper sham; in the second place that the plant is being postponed by 18 months because Ontario Hydro has accepted that there is no need for it at the originally offered time, and that the reason for the exemption was that the plant had to be put into place so quickly that there was not time for an environmental assessment? Now that the time exists to have an environmental assessment under the act, can the minister explain why he is refusing to order such an evaluation?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think this matter has been given a great deal of consideration over the years. As the leader said, it was considered at that time. Granted, the time element has been extended, but I think the terms of reference still hold, and should.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I find the minister’s answer a bit difficult to understand. As Minister of the Environment, is he not aware that in its system expansion plan review last year Hydro specifically stated that a major consideration in its decision at that time not to defer Darlington was its fear that the plant would come under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Can the minister not take action as the Minister of the Environment to find out why Hydro was trying to avoid this first evaluation of a power station under the act, and why will he not act to ensure that it does have that evaluation, now that the time is available?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Those exemptions, Mr. Speaker, I think were established in the original concept. I am sure as we go into the future that many of the projects Hydro will do will be under the act. There is no doubt in my mind that that is true; as the minister, I would certainly take the strident position that they should be. But in this instance I believe the decision has been duly considered and we should stay with that decision.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that the only two neurosurgeons in Windsor have opted out of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan; that one of them, Dr. Victor Kleider, now is charging $75 for a first consultation, a fee that is 85 per cent more than the amount paid under OHIP, and that this doctor’s office now is asking patients on a fixed income to come to their appointments with their $75 cash in hand?

What steps is the government prepared to take to ensure that, in the case of neurosurgeons, universal accessibility is restored to people who need health care in Windsor, and that it is restored at OHIP rates without it being necessary to pay a surcharge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of many things in Windsor, but I am not aware of that particular situation. I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), as he has in so many matters, will endeavour to find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it is a matter of government policy that OHIP now be undermined, and since the Premier is responsible for the government, is the Premier not aware that not only have these two neurosurgeons opted out of OHIP, but they have also written to general practitioners in Windsor asking them to inform them if a patient cannot afford their fee schedule? Does this not reintroduce the concept of the doctors deciding whether or not the patient can pay? Will the Premier himself, on behalf of the government of Ontario, act to eliminate this kind of charity medicine in the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have complete confidence in the ability of the minister to resolve --

Mr. Breaugh: You’re the only one who does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I tell my friend, I have a lot more confidence in my colleague than I would ever have in the honourable member as a Minister of Health. The member for Oshawa can do a lot of things in his own mind; but if he were to run a Ministry of Health, it would be a disaster for the province. We are not undermining medicare; the members of the New Democratic Party, if they ever had the responsibility, would be a total disaster.

Mr. Breaugh: I thank you for the compliment.

[2: 30]

Mr. Cassidy: Answer the question, answer the question.

Mr. Breaugh: He would still be a step ahead of you. Why don’t you come to Oshawa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member would still be a total disaster. He is a disaster coming in here to the House -- well, not every day.

As a matter of fact, we’re not undermining medicare. It is the finest system, as I objectively said yesterday, available in North America for the citizens of this province. The minister, I am sure, will make every effort to deal with that particular problem in Windsor.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Could the minister review briefly in this House the reason or reasons for the late opening of eight provincial parks, three of which are located in the Renfrew county area? At that time, could the minister also indicate whether or not he is aware of the deleterious impact these late openings will have upon both the demand for early opening by travelling Ontarians and out-of-province guests, as well as, and equally seriously, the negative impact it will have upon local employment patterns?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the list in front of me but a number of our parks will not be opening as early this year because of past experience in use and the constraints of our own budget. It is as simple as that. We are attempting to open early the parks that past experience indicates are used early and delaying opening of those where there is very little use until later.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary: The three parks, Bonnechere, Carson Lake and Driftwood, were designated as perimeter parks for the Algonquin Park master plan, parks that were to take some of the burden and growing pressure off Algonquin Provincial Park. Would the minister not agree that by the late openings he is in this way working against the policy stated by this government through the Algonquin Park master plan?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If experience indicates that is the case, then I will certainly review it for next year.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Wouldn’t the minister agree that combined with the increase in park fees last year and this year’s shorter season, he’s not really living up to his responsibility for providing easy access to the provincial parks in the wilderness of this province for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think within the framework of our budget we are doing the best job we can do. I will be able to tell the honourable members better next year the results of this year’s experiment, but based on previous experience we don’t think we are going to inconvenience many people.

Mr. Cassidy: It all ends with the dollar sign.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy regarding the statement he made this afternoon on nuclear waste disposal. The minister says in his statement that “we,” presumably the Ontario government, “have not as yet approved any proposals for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to carry out test chilling.” Can he tell the House if he has received any proposals to carry out test drilling, and can he tell this House whether or not he has any information at all that AECL plans to do some drilling within this coming summer season?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as of this morning I don’t believe we had received anything and until we receive something I really won’t be able to answer the second part of the question.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister inform the House when he does receive any proposals and, secondly, could he tell us at what stage the third step of the community relations in a research area, that is the public meeting co-sponsored by AECL and the town council to answer public questions, will take place in the Atikokan area as the first two steps have already taken place?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will inform the honourable member.

DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING

Mr. Eaton: A question for the Minister of Labour: Would the Minister of Labour look into the discrimination in hiring practices being carried on by the recreation committee of the Public Utilities Commission in the city of London? I quote from a letter to a student, “I must inform you that a policy has been established by the commission that citizens of London must be given preference.”

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the only legislation that would cover a situation like that would be the Ontario Human Rights Code, where it refers particularly to discrimination on the basis of place of origin. I know there have been some difficulties with regard to the exact interpretation of that section. I’ll be glad to look into it and speak to the member about it.

Mr. Eaton: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister also discuss with the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) the fact that grants are given by that ministry to the recreation program? Perhaps they should be withheld because the whole province is donating to it and the citizens of the rest of the province are being discriminated against by London.

Mr. Van Horne: That’s a crock, and you know it.

Mr. Eaton: Did you help make that policy when you were there?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say that the member is sitting very close to the Minister of Culture and Recreation; perhaps he could lean over.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: On Friday last, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about boilers. I gave him some information at the time and told him I would give him a full answer when I got further information from Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And it’s full.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This has to do with damaged nuclear boilers at Pickering generating station B. Following a program of investigation of the boilers at Pickering generating station B, now under construction, it has been decided to remove all boilers installed or delivered to the project -- a total of 32 -- and ship them back to the manufacturer for rebuilding.

This program of investigation and testing was begun late last year when partial blocking of some tubes was discovered during an inspection of boilers installed in unit 5 at the station project.

Subsequently, manufacturing of all nuclear boilers was stopped, pending investigation of this problem. The manufacturer of these boilers is Babcock and Wilcox of Cambridge, Ontario. The company also has orders to supply steam generators for the following nuclear stations under construction in Ontario: Bruce generating station B, 32 boilers on which fabrication has started but they are not yet assembled; and Darlington, 16 boilers on which fabrication has not started.

In February, a more thorough examination was conducted at the manufacturer’s works on boiler 33, which had been heat treated, and on boiler 34, which had not. This testing confirmed that the damage had occurred during the heat treatment process and that it was probably repeated in all 32 remaining boilers delivered or installed at Pickering B. The heat treatment process, and some design details for Pickering B, had been modified by Babcock and Wilcox as part of the continuing effort to achieve overall manufacturing improvement.

Cost of the replacement and the effect on construction schedules are now the subject of discussion between Ontario Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox. The damage consists of denting and marking of several outer rows of tubes, bowing of tubes in the outer layers and distortion of some of the baffle blades.

It should be noted that the problems do not affect any of Ontario Hydro’s operating nuclear stations. In the eight years of operation of Pickering A, only one small leak in a single tube has occurred in the boilers, which were also supplied by Babcock and Wilcox. This was quickly located on the tube plugs using a standard technique for eliminating tube defects.

Hon. Ms. Davis: It’s a problem with the tubes, that’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This is an excellent performance record compared to any reactor in the world.

It should be stressed that, in the current atmosphere following the incident at Three Mile Island, this matter of steam generators at Pickering B is a particularly good example of a quality control system that works well.

The continual checking and rechecking to meet the high standards of nuclear quality control ensures that we have the best possible material, fabricated and installed to the highest possible standards, to give us the remarkable performance we have seen in the last eight years at Pickering A.

Mr. Foulds: George Orwell called that “newspeak.”

Mr. S. Smith: Given that the minister seems reasonably clear in his own mind that the problem had to do with a certain process -- a certain heat process at Babcock and Wilcox -- why should the matter of who pays for taking out the boilers, repairing them and putting them back in again, be a matter for discussion? Why is it not perfectly obvious that the manufacturer is obligated to provide material to the highest specifications? Why is it not perfectly obvious that the manufacturer is to pay for this?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t have details of the discussions that are going on, but I would assume there is no question about the refabrication. There may be some question about additional costs incurred by Hydro.

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTE

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that should be directed to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) but, in view of the fact she is not present, I would like to direct it to the Premier.

Mr. Breaugh: Where is she? Where is the iron maiden?

Mr. McClellan: I hope she’s still in China.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The question concerns the secondary school teachers of the Haldimand Board of Education and the dispute between them and the board of education. I wonder if the Premier would use his good offices to try to bring the teachers and the board together, in view of the fact that there seems to be only a small difference between the two sides. The parents have been trying to keep the classrooms open, but the welfare of the students is at stake. I wonder if the Premier would use his good offices to bring the sides together in order to get the teachers back into the classrooms?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that a member of the opposition would think I had such capacity or talent to resolve these issues. I listen to some of his colleagues some days and I really wonder whether they would express this same measure of confidence.

I understand the Education Relations Commission has been involved in this. I think there are meetings going on today as a matter of fact. Certainly, we’re keeping an eye on it. We would like to see it resolved as much as the member would, but as has been illustrated and demonstrated on a number of occasions, if it can be resolved through the commission without the direct intervention of the minister or the Premier it probably is a better route to go. I think most members would accept that.

Let’s see what happens at the discussions today. If they don’t come to some sort of conclusion, certainly the ministry will endeavour to help, but I would like to see it resolved through the Education Relations Commission. That is their responsibility, and on balance throughout the province they have done relatively well over the past two or three years.

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment concerning emissions of pollutants from Continuous Colour Coat Limited in Rexdale. Can the minister inform the House why his officials waited until this time to invite residents in the area to a meeting on April 17 to discuss whether or not they agree that the ministry should extend the deadline to clean up operations, a deadline of March 31 which has already passed and a deadline which was agreed to some three years ago?

Can the minister explain the apparent discrepancy between the new deadline proposed by his ministry, namely September 30, and that circulated to the residents by the company, which was that it would be completed by the end of the year? I’m wondering if the minister would give us a final deadline now and tell us what his ministry and the Ministry of Labour and Manpower are going to do to make this company meet that new deadline which obviously will have to be set?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we covered rather extensively the point of extending deadlines in committee. I welcome the opportunity to make the point here. The extension of the deadline that the company requests, in my opinion, should be after it has put its case to the public. It’s their deadline, and it’s their responsibility to tell the public why they cannot meet it rather than the onus being on the ministry. I think the member would agree with that concept.

The amount of time to meet the conditions that have been set will be part of the submission by the company as to why it needs either six or nine months. I understand that company is quite prepared to put a lot of money into a different process. I hope the hearings will very clearly set forward for the member and constituents of that area why the company needs that time. The onus now is clearly on the company to make the case.

[2:45]

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, is the minister saying that after three years his ministry only knew recently that the deadline of March 31 would not be met? I wonder if the minister, in answering that, is also aware of the comments made in a letter of February 8 by Dr. Fitch of the occupational health and safety division of the Ministry of Labour and Manpower, a letter which I supplied to the minister yesterday in case he hadn’t received a copy before then.

In this letter Dr. Fitch suggested that the Ministry of the Environment had not yet supplied precise contents or the composition of 11 different solvents and 15 coatings used at the plant, and that on reviewing the toxicity information on the products which could be identified, most are listed as moderately toxic, that is three on a scale of one to six. Can the minister tell us when we will have specific details from his ministry about what is being emitted from that plant and about any potential hazard to the residents in the area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the ministry does know the contents of the 26 elements used in the plant itself. What we don’t know, and what I guess is next to impossible to determine, due to the various combinations and permutations of 26 different products as they combine, is what they might emit in the way of stack emissions; that is very difficult to ascertain.

The same Dr. Fitch has suggested to us-- and I would hope, to the residents -- that in his professional opinion he did not see a health hazard to the local people.

Mr. McClellan: Ignorance is no hazard, is that the principle? Ignorance is no hazard.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it should be put on the record that the same person who is asking us for information, given his best knowledge doesn’t feel there is a hazard to the people there.

We did know that the company wanted an extension, but until that date arrived, we weren’t able to extend it, obviously. Secondly, it was only very recently, with this change in policy, that it became the responsibility of the company to make the case rather than the ministry. I think that is a very sensible change in policy and it has happened in only the last three or four weeks, six at the outside. There has been quite a change in policy about extension of deadlines.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Will the minister please justify the recent cabinet decision on the Bradley-Georgetown hydro corridor, under which the government is now trying to force this into existence through order in council; realizing the stretchouts announced today and approved yesterday, realizing there is no bottling of power taking place at Bruce at the present time, realizing that existing 230 kv lines can be further upgraded if necessary, realizing that Bruce B will not come on line until 1983 and realizing that there is still time for the independent study requested for the last six years by the Interested Citizens Group in that area?

Mr. Hennessy: You don’t want anybody to work.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, in the news release which I made on this matter this morning, there are --

Mr. Warner: Don’t read it all, please don’t read it.

Mr. Wildman: You should have read it this morning.

Mr. McClellan: Who writes this?

Mr. Wildman: It goes from left to right.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- 15 pages of the history, the hearings and the various events that have taken place.

Mr. Martel: If you stood on your head it would be easier.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m sure the honourable member realizes -- we have discussed this on a number of occasions -- that the reasons haven’t changed since perhaps a year or so ago when they were put together.

Mr. Worton: I never realized that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can tell him that Hydro’s report, as of this morning, of the latest cost of the lack of that 10 miles, in terms of generating losses, is about $17,000,000; and they calculate it’s going to continue at the rate of about $1,200,000 or $1,300,000 per month for the rest of this year.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us how many hours he spends in the office of the Ministry of Energy apprising himself of the real facts surrounding this case and getting a first-hand view, rather than leaving it entirely to his deputy minister to continue to feed him with the kind of twisted sets of so-called facts --

Mr. S. Smith: Precisely.

Mr. J. Reed: -- that have been proved in court, that have been proved in public hearings --

Mr. Warner: Ask the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), he knows.

Mr. J. Reed: -- to have been false premises upon which government decisions have been made?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I spend a great deal of time on energy matters -- some in the Energy ministry, some in the Natural Resources ministry office, and some at home.

ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Recent events both here and in the United States involving oil tanker breakups, propane-gas-car derailments and even a nuclear plant accident, have highlighted the need for adequate contingency plans covering environmental emergencies in order to protect the public from dangerous air and water contamination. While I know there is a provincial contingency plan in Ontario, I would like to ask the minister about its implementation. Last November his ministry issued a booklet.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Ms. Bryden: It is about this booklet. Last November this ministry issued a booklet --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member has had enough experience to know how to put a question properly. Please do so.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell me why, when I addressed a refresher course for community health workers in March and referred to this booklet, called Response to Environmental and Environmental Health Emergencies, many of them had not even seen this booklet. They had not seen the Ontario contingency plan, either.

I would like to ask the minister how can he expect these community health workers, medical officers of health and so on, to carry out their role in dealing with environmental emergencies if they haven’t even received his guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Back in the days when I was Minister of Colleges and Universities I would certainly have understood that question much better. I would have said immediately that I would see the colleges -- I think the member suggested she was presenting a lecture at a community college, to a group of students?

Mr. Wildman: It was the medical officer of health.

Mr. Conway: That’s her husband.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s what I thought I heard her say, that she was addressing these students at a college. In that event I would have been able to say I would certainly see that distribution of this booklet among the colleges is greatly improved. Perhaps I had better have a word with the Minister of Education now. We will try to disseminate that information.

We do our very best to see that people have this information. If they choose not to read it, it may be because they are attending too many lectures, I am not sure.

Ms. Bryden: It was not community college students, it was a refresher course for people who are in the field right now -- medical officers of health and community health workers. These are the people who would be in the front line if there were an environmental emergency.

I would like to ask, by way of supplementary, if the minister can comment on page 10 of this report, where it states that in determining the rate of emission and concentration of contaminants in the immediate vicinity of the emergency, there is only limited capability at the present time, for the air resources branch or the laboratory services branch to provide emergency analytical service. In fact, there is little or no capability to provide instant analysis of air or water contaminants likely to be involved in environmental --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question? Order, another question over here.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications; it deals with his 1979-80 construction program.

Could the minister advise why it is there are no projected programs for resurfacing highway 417, the Ottawa Queensway, when in fact a report from his ministry, dated January 1979, states what everybody in Ottawa knows; that is that the Queensway is congested, has poor skid resistance and the pavement is deteriorating, so that it is therefore necessary to do some remedial work in the short-run. The report goes on to state that the skid resistance in many areas is very low, with the skid resistance numbers on wet pavement approaching those expected on an ice surface.

What kind of priorities does the minister have in his ministry which would tolerate a situation like this on the Ottawa Queensway?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen that particular report the honourable member is holding up. If he would like to send me a copy of it, I’d be very glad to look into this matter.

Mr. J. Reed: Pretty slippery answer.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re skating on thin asphalt.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have had discussions for many months with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton with regard to proposed reconstruction work and improvements on the Ottawa Queensway. I think just recently we have come about with some conclusion to those discussions.

Another thing I’d like to say is that on the projects that go into that particular book, which was published two or three weeks ago, the decisions basically as to the establishment of that program were made last October.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister’s construction program states that “each project has been selected within the context of need, priority and budget constraint to provide for the essential,” and in view of the fact that this report from the ministry, dated January 22, 1979, states that the skid resistance on the wet Queensway is 20 to 33 and on an ice surface is about 19, and the report states that the absolute minimum is 27, in view of the fact that this is not something that happens overnight, could the minister advise if he is in touch, when establishing these priorities, with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications office in Kingston, and is he not aware that in Ottawa we have a canal to skate on, we don’t need a Queensway?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know the honourable member has had considerable time recently to research this project. I have told him that I will ask for a copy of the report. I believe my ministry estimates start tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock. I don’t believe the honourable member came last year. I invite him to come this year and we’ll have a good discussion about this matter.

HERITAGE LANGUAGE PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. In view of the fact that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is in China and therefore not available to consider what the ethnic communities feel about the destructive cutbacks in the heritage language program and in view of the fact that boards of education are examining theft budgets and the heritage language program may be cut off, will the Premier respond to the concerns and anger in the ethnic communities in the province and see to it that the 50 per cent cutbacks will be scrapped and inform the boards of education and communities of that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to make it very clear, because I’ve had some discussions on this matter, that the heritage language program will without any question be maintained. There is some complexity in the grant regulation as it relates to certain municipalities, but the ministry is working on it to see that it has an equitable formula for distribution.

I assure the honourable member that before he raised it here I had raised it with the minister and the ministry officials. I spoke to the separate school principals’ association some four weeks ago, at which time I assured them that the heritage language program, which I think has been extremely helpful and beneficial in terms of the educational system in this province, would in fact he maintained.

I do point out to the honourable member that to try to draft regulations that distribute the moneys equitably where there is need et cetera, is not quite as simple as he might suggest. I’m not asking him to understand that, and I’m not being critical; I can just assure him, as I have assured several other people who have raised this matter with me in the past two to three weeks, that the heritage language program without question will he maintained.

Mr. Grande: At half funding.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You knew that, Tony. Why did you ask?

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the Premier is suggesting that the heritage language program will he maintained at half funding, will --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I don’t mind a little give and take in here, but I don’t recall my saying that it would be maintained at half funding. I don’t recall using that phrase.

Ms. Gigantes: Then what are you saying?

Mr. Cassidy: How will it be maintained?

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier’s suggestion at his last speaking engagement, or whatever, to the principals of the separate school board here in Metropolitan Toronto, is the minister aware that the cutbacks came the day after the Premier spoke at that particular conference; and can the Premier make a commitment -- since, as I said, he has taken a personal interest in this matter since May 1977 -- that (1) no child who is currently in a class will be cut off, because the 50 per cent funding is going to reduce by 25,000 the number of children in that program, and (2) no family in this province will have to pay a $25 deterrent fee to enrol children in that program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member -- I will phrase it as generally as I can and, at the same time, as specifically as I can -- that the quality of the heritage language program will he maintained. I cannot tell him exactly what the regulations may say with respect to weighted enrolments, class size, et cetera, because the complexity in this is to distribute those funds. I am not talking about half funding, nor am I talking about cutbacks; I am talking about a fund of money that is distributed equitably amongst those boards which have introduced this program. I can assure the honourable member that the quality and the scope of the program will be maintained.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is aware that last Thursday the township of Mersea, which is in the riding of Essex South, was struck by a hurricane, causing well over $300,000 damage. I wonder whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is aware that many of the greenhouse crops were totally destroyed and many families suffered much personal damage.

I wonder whether he could have his ministry staff apprise themselves of the problem and if he is going to set up the same type of relief emergency fund that he had set up for the township of Dover when they had an emergency situation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the proper procedure for my friend to follow is, if he would like to get an official letter from that municipality, he can give it to me, as his colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) did. We will be happy to have someone investigate it and process it. The disaster relief fund is there and, upon application from a municipality, we will be happy to review it and then I will get back to him.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would give some consideration to recommending a new approach to disaster relief to his colleagues. This dollar-for-dollar situation often leads to surrounding municipalities making commitments from their own treasuries simply to assist their neighbour in getting some decent funding from provincial Treasury sources.

Would the minister not accept the recommendation from the city of Nanticoke which calls for the establishment of a program funded by the province to assist those areas and individuals which suffer damage from acts of God of this type?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to look at any new arrangements that might make anything better, but I draw to my friend’s attention that the plan we have now is not a bad one. It involves responsibility at the local level; if they raise half the money, we will match it dollar for dollar. That is a pretty good program.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: Why has the Attorney General not initiated prosecutions in cases of violation of the Election Finances Reform Act which have been documented for the minister in letters by Mr. Arthur Wishart, chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses, in August 1978?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I made it quite clear to the chairman of the commission, in my view it is very clear from the statute that the responsibility for initiating prosecutions lies with the commission. I would think the honourable member has been a member of the Legislature long enough to realize the Attorney General does not initiate prosecutions. Prosecutions are generally initiated by police law enforcement officers. I have made it very clear in these circumstances that I think it is the responsibility of the election expenses commission to initiate prosecutions relating to breaches of the legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: The commission’s obligation under the statute is to report cases of violation to the Attorney General. Although this admittedly is something of a loophole, it implies he is the person who should initiate the prosecutions. If he is not willing to accept that obligation, and therefore makes a mockery of the implementation of the act, why doesn’t he respond to the commission’s request for amendments, among those amendments to give them specifically the power to initiate prosecutions?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would recommend that the member for York South read the legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: I have.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think if he has read it, it should be abundantly clear to him that it is within the prerogative of the commission under the present legislation to initiate such prosecutions.

Mr. MacDonald: The chairman doesn’t agree with you.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am telling the member this is my view. The matter has been reviewed by senior officers of the crown and they are in agreement with the view as expressed. I think it is the proper one.

Mr. McClellan: The chairman was the former Attorney General, too.

Mr. Swart: Can you resolve the difference?

Mr. Cassidy: This is a conspiracy not to act.

Mr. MacDonald: You are making a mockery of the act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t think the member understands the act. That is his problem and not mine.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: As is customary when we have a group of pages leaving who have been with us for the last four or five weeks, this will be the last opportunity I will have to say how much we appreciate their assistance and their co-operation. I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to read their names into the record:

Reid Chesney of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk; Steven Clark of Grey-Bruce; Maria Costa of Dovercourt; Leslie Cyfko of Mississauga East; Rayanne Dupuis of Cochrane North; Lori Entwistle of Cornwall; Amelia Golden of Armourdale; James Gordon of Riverdale; Melanie Harrison of Northumberland; Andre Loiselle of Cornwall; James MacLellan of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; Julia Marchesan of Hamilton East; Peter Noble of Don Mills; Lisa Osbourne of Essex South; Michael Power of High Park; Edward Remillard of Sault Ste. Marie; Anthony Siblall of Cochrane South; Francine St-Denis of Cochrane South; Gregory Thomas of Sarnia; Nicola Thom-Neilsen of Kingston and the Islands; Rita Vasilopoulos of York East; and Allison Webb of York Centre.

I am sure all members would like to thank them for their services to this House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRES EXTINGUISHMENT REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 43, An Act to repeal the Fires Extinguishment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This is the first of three acts I am introducing to repeal acts which are no longer necessary in this province. This act was enacted in 1890, and it provided for a means of extinguishing forest fires. It enabled county councils to authorize certain people appointed by township councils to order male residents of the township to help fight a forest fire. This can now be handled under other acts and is not necessary.

VACANT LAND CULTIVATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 44, An Act to repeal the Vacant Land Cultivation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This act was enacted in 1918. It authorizes councils of local municipalities to grant permits to any person to enter upon, hold and use any vacant land in the municipality for cultivating it and raising crops. In today’s world it would be seen, I think, as perhaps an infringement on individual property rights, and therefore we are repealing the act.

FIRE GUARDIANS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 45, An Act to repeal the Fire Guardians Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: He is extinguishing a lot of acts.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This act was enacted in 1889. It enables township councils to appoint fire guardians whose responsibility is to regulate the setting of open-air fires in the townships between April 1 and October 31. It is obviously an obsolete and unnecessary piece of legislation now and there are other more modern acts to take care of the things that this act was meant to take care of.

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This amendment to the Local Improvement Act will give municipalities the option of issuing debentures to finance local improvements before the work is completed. This will eliminate the necessity for temporary borrowing which currently results in increased interest expense to some municipalities. This change is in keeping with other recent amendments aimed at streamlining municipalities’ financial operations.

In addition, the bill contains amendments to forms two, three and four to change the wording from per foot footage to per metre footage. Another amendment seeks to enable municipalities which have begun proceedings for a local improvement under the imperial system to continue in the imperial system until the project is completed.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 95, 96 and 99 standing on the Notice Paper.

[3:15]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the Ministry of Transportation and Communications Act.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain if I should be anticipating any comments by the minister on this legislation. I would just say that in keeping with the spirit of making minority government work, and work expeditiously and clearly, we will be very brief on these four bills.

This particular piece of legislation is somewhat self-explanatory, and I think is in keeping with the concept of eliminating red tape, especially as it relates to the minister’s own personal activities.

I should profess at this time a slight conflict of interest, insofar as if in the near future we are over there and they are over here, my signature is not all that legible. Were I in the fortunate position to enjoy the responsibilities the current minister has, it would eliminate for me the embarrassment I have every time I sign my name.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have no such conflict of interest; people will be able to understand my signature. I see nothing wrong with the bill, so let’s get on with it.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

STATUTE LABOUR AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Statute Labour Act.

Mr. Cunningham: Again, this particular piece of legislation will be supported by the Liberal Party. As I see it it is a sweetening of the pot, I guess, to add some incentive to have an individual serve as secretary-treasurer of the roads commissions. Recognizing the amount of work that is involved, it seems to be a realistic move by the government.

I would hope that sometime the minister might convince the authorities within the cabinet to sweeten the pot for people who are required to serve on jury duty as well.

Mr. Philip: We are in support of the bill. I would be interested in having it go to committee of the whole House, and perhaps have the minister simply give us some of the background of this amendment and perhaps a concrete example of how and when there would be an instance where it would apply or is being applied. That is my only question on that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am not against the bill going to committee, but maybe I can just explain here and save that problem.

This is really a housekeeping bill that simply removes the $50 maximum limitation presently in the legislation on the annual salary which may be paid to the secretary-treasurer out of the funds for Statute Labour Act road support. There are only 23 of these boards left in existence in Ontario, and I presume when this act was passed, $50 was an appropriate fee. I understand many of the boards are paying their secretary-treasurer more than the $50; some of them are paying the secretary-treasurer as much as $300 or $400 to administer the act.

Because of the limitation in this bill, my ministry is only able to subsidize the boards for the first $50, and we think it is in keeping with having the act up to date that we should remove this unreasonably low figure and let the boards establish their own fees for the secretary-treasurer.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LOCAL ROADS BOARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Local Roads Boards Act.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I made a few phone calls to people I thought might be interested in this. They can find no problems with it. We are supportive of this and think it should simply go to third reading.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

AIRPORTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Airports Act.

Ms. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, this too appears to be a simple amendment to the Airports Act. I wonder if the minister might favour us with some examples as to how he sees this amendment serving the current legislation and how he would see it work in practice. I am just wondering what the motivation was. I thought he might have an explanation for it.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I had only a couple of questions on it and the minister answered those questions during our fire drill or whatever it was yesterday. I believe the member for Beaches-Woodbine has a couple of questions. We would like it to go into committee so that she could ask those questions. I see no problem with the bill.

Ms. Bryden: On the principle of the bill, I would like to ask a question that perhaps the minister could reply to: I understand that the purpose of this bill is to speed up the approval of grants for airport construction and change, and certainly we would like to see the process speeded up.

I would like to ask the minister about a story which appeared in the Globe and Mail on March 26, suggesting that the government had expressed an interest in getting into the regional airline business on its own. I would like to ask him if this power that is being given to him instead of to the cabinet would be used in the implementation of such development, if that is being contemplated.

I would like to ask him also if his ministry has actually made plans to submit an application to the Canadian Transport Commission for the province to enter into the regional airlines business. If so, would grants for airports involved in such business come under this particular act? In a case like that, I think we would want cabinet approval, but if it’s more for small grants for local airports, then it’s a different matter.

I would like him to comment on that story in the Globe as to whether the ministry is thinking of making an application to get into the regional airline business on its own.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the questions, I think the answer basically to all of them is no.

The member for Wentworth North inquired as to why we are doing this. My ministry will administer transfer payments to municipalities of something in the neighbourhood of $535,000,000 this year in the way of grants for road construction, road maintenance, bridge construction and transit capital and operating expenses. All of those grants come under the different acts involved. Once the appropriation of funds is approved by cabinet, the ministry is free to make those allocations of grants to the different municipalities under various formulas.

The Airports Act, I believe was set up back in 1968. Up until that time the government had not been involved in airports. There was no real past experience, so a provision was put in the act that each airport grant required an order in council. This now requires something in the neighbourhood of 40 to 50 orders in council per year.

The grants we’re talking about are mainly grants to northern and eastern Ontario communities for the construction and maintenance of their airport programs. The grants are usually quite small, or relatively small, compared to many others. The proposed grants, for instance, for the coming year range from $5,000 up to about $310,000, which I believe is the highest we propose to make on the capital program. In maintenance, they range from $10,000 to $25,000.

As it is now, for each one of these grants the ministry staff must prepare an order in council; it must go to cabinet; it must go on the cabinet agenda. If all my ministry’s grants, for instance, for roads to municipalities were done in the same way, I don’t think we’d ever get the grants distributed to the municipalities because of the paperwork.

We now have the experience in airports. It’s cabinet policy that only airports in northern Ontario and certain areas of eastern Ontario qualify for capital grants, and only those in northern Ontario qualify for maintenance grants. It’s under that policy we distribute these funds.

As a matter of interest, the grants provided this year are to Atikokan, Cochrane, Deer Falls, Elliot Lake, Fort Frances, Hornepayne, Iroquois Falls, Kirkland Lake, Nakina, Parry Sound, Sioux Lookout, Terrace Bay -- I think that one would interest you, Mr. Speaker -- Thessalon, Belleville, Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, Morrisburg and Smiths Falls. Maintenance grants, for instance, are provided to Atikokan, Sachigo, Elliot Lake, et cetera.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Nothing for Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All this will do is let us operate the grants to the municipal airports on the same basis as we do all the other grants in the ministry. It has nothing to do with any airports in southern Ontario; nothing to do with any federal airports, and nothing to do with any possible provincial airline.

Mr. Wildman: Add Wawa to that list.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 18, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should make a few comments before we discuss this bill on second reading. The bill proposes two amendments to the present Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Section 1 of the bill clarifies the tax levying procedures of those area municipalities within regional municipalities which have been recently reassessed under section 86 of the Assessment Act. The municipalities affected are those within the regions of Waterloo and Durham and the city of Timmins in the district of Cochrane.

Prior to the implementation of section 86, these area municipalities had different property tax bases and different mill rates for each of their merged areas. Application of section 86 not only removes inequities between similar properties in these areas but also produces a single tax base for each municipality.

The proposed amendments to the Unconditional Grants Act are merely a clarification in order to bring it into line with the administrative implications of section 86 of the Assessment Act. It ensures that a single set of mill rates is struck across the local municipality rather than separate rates for each of its merged areas.

[3:30]

Section 2 of the bill allows for the payment, in the year 1979, of a special onetime grant to a number of municipalities which have been judged to be adversely affected in the calculation of the resource equalization grants because of the equalization factors which have been frozen and unchanged since 1970. I believe that all the members have had a copy of our statement and an explanation of how this ad hoc grant was arrived at, plus a list of those municipalities that would benefit from the ad hoc grant. We’ve already written to the municipalities on the strength of this bill being introduced for first reading and, of course, subject to the passage of the bill, the municipalities which have had indication that they will receive this ad hoc grant will then be paid the grant. I will be happy to discuss the bill in further detail with the members of the House as we debate it now.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill 18, which is An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

We will support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, but we have some serious reservations about the enactment of the bill and, in particular, the many years that have passed from 1970 to 1979 before trying to resolve some of the problems, although they are only being resolved in a very minimal way.

We see from the act and from the releases that the minister has made accompanying the bill itself that 39 municipalities will be gaining some amount of money from the provincial government. These 39 municipalities and the grants they will be receiving vary considerably. For instance, the city of Windsor will be receiving a sum of about $3,097,000, whereas the last one on the list, the city of Kitchener, will be receiving about $20,000; for a total expenditure by the government of around $6,628,000. This is somewhat short of the $8,000,000 we understood the government was going to allocate to the various municipalities last fall when a number of statements were made by the minister and by the Premier.

All these municipalities are deserving of the money they’re receiving and there are other municipalities that should be receiving some of the dollars. I appreciate the fact that the government has not an unlimited pot of gold that they can dish out to the various municipalities, but I think that some of them, such as Windsor, Sarnia, St. Catharines and maybe a few others, have been singled out in the past as being deprived of this revenue. The reason they’ve been deprived, as I understand it, particularly some of them such as Windsor, is because they had a high assessment rate back in 1970 When the assessment for the province was frozen.

As a result of them having a fairly high assessment rate, they didn’t get some of the resource equalization payments that they should have received and now, in order to correct that particular problem, the government is coming forth with this one-time unconditional grant.

My colleague, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who wanted to speak to this matter and, unfortunately, will not be able to --

Mr. B. Newman: I will speak.

Mr. Epp: Oh, pardon me, Bernie. I was looking for you in your seat. You will be here. Sorry.

Mr. Nixon: He’s always here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, he’s always here.

Mr. Swart: Don’t hassle your own member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are other people missing.

Mr. Swart: Leave that to us.

Mr. Epp: He will want to speak to this matter a little later, but in order to cover the matter, I just want to say that I’m proud of my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville who was probably the first member in this Legislature to raise the matter. He was the first, I’m told, so there’s no probably about it. He was the first, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: Darcy McKeough admitted it to me later on.

Mr. Epp: If Darcy McKeough admitted it, that’s quite an admission by the former Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The present minister will appreciate that.

As a result, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), another colleague of mine, the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), all of whom were affected by this shortfall in grants from the province, have drawn this matter to the attention of the government, and rightly they should.

As I understand it, back in 1973 when the resource equalization formula was first adopted there was a base of $10,300 for equalization across the province, on a per capita basis. Whatever municipalities were short of this $10,300 -- and this figure today, in 1979, has been increased to $10,800 -- the province picked up up to 60 per cent of that in resource equalization.

I know that my own municipality, which -- fortunately or unfortunately -- doesn’t qualify for the grant, has a per capita figure of $11,823. They have to have more than $1,000 over the base figure in order to qualify for the grants. I don’t think the city of Waterloo, for instance, has ever received a cent from the resource equalization payments.

These unconditional grants the government is now giving out raise another matter -- one that has been raised in this Legislature a number of times by myself and by a number of my colleagues. That is the principle of “unconditional” grants. As the minister knows, approximately 83 per cent of the grants the province gives to municipalities are of a conditional nature. The former Treasurer commissioned a study -- and that body was chaired, I think, by the deputy minister of the present Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs -- which indicated the province should open up the flood gates -- a little anyway -- with respect to unconditional grants. They constitute only about 17 per cent -- and I could be corrected here; it might be that 84 per cent are conditional or 82 per cent, something of that nature. Nevertheless there should be more unconditional grants given to the various municipalities. This, in turn, would provide greater need and greater opportunity for the various municipalities to make autonomous decisions at the local level.

I hope the minister will have something to say with respect to unconditional grants and the easing up by the government on the formula it presently has for giving out the very few unconditional grants. I know one of the ministries that is particularly reluctant to go along with this request is the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The reason is that it likes to have its finger in the pot and likes to be able to control where the money goes and say I how much municipalities are going to receive and where it is going to be spent.

This bill also clarifies the levying procedures of those municipalities which have opted for section 86 of the Assessment Act. For those members who aren’t aware, what section 86 essentially does is equalize assessment within classes in the various municipalities. This is particularly important for such municipalities as Cambridge, where I think they have somewhere between 10 and 12 different assessments. They have both commercial and industrial assessment as one and the residential assessment as another, and then they have the three municipalities of Cambridge, Galt and Preston, which meant there were six assessments. They had another two assessments that were brought in from some areas annexed from the township of Waterloo. There were another two assessments from North Dumfries, and I think there was another small piece taken in from one of the townships in Wentworth county. In total, that would make 12 different assessments. There was, of course, a considerable problem and great consternation in Cambridge, where they had 12 assessments to work with, rather than two, which would have simplified it considerably.

Bringing in section 86 -- which I support in principle, as the minister knows -- will simplify the matter for the municipality of Cambridge. That same problem carries through to other municipalities in the province, although maybe not to the same extent.

One of the problems that we have on this side of the House is that equalizing assessment within classes means that a house -- and this was the example given by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) last summer in Cambridge; I remember him saying this -- one house in Cambridge might be taxed to the extent of $1,400 or $1,500, while another house of similar market value might only be taxed to the extent of $600; so obviously there was that inequity.

Applying section 86, which this bill helps to clarify, means they will have more equalized assessment and, to follow through with that, more equalized taxation to pay during the current and future years.

The fact that these various municipalities -- six of them in the region of Waterloo and another seven in other municipalities in Ontario -- requested the government to invoke section 86 of the Assessment Act would help to strengthen the municipal governments’ bid in trying to equalize the assessment.

Earlier in this session, one day when the minister was absent, I drew to the attention of the Premier the fact that the assessment on one piece of property in the region of Waterloo went up by 11,000 per cent. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record reported: “The biggest increase is for a small parcel of land at Pine Bush Road. Taxes for the land used for water purposes have increased from $44 last year to over $5,000 this year.”

In this particular case the region, which owned that property, was in a position to pay that tax; but there are many other people who have difficulty in paying the increased taxes.

We on this side of the House recommended that the government seriously consider in the case of every municipality that asked for permission from the minister to invoke, I think, section 505 of the Municipal Act, granting that permission. I understand the municipality of Hamilton has requested this, and I believe the Premier indicated they would be permitted to use that.

Section 505 of the Municipal Act actually permits municipalities to phase in increases of more than $50 over a five-year period. As I indicated, this may not be of particular significance to the regional municipality of Waterloo, but it is significant to a number of property owners and particularly to property owners who are living on a fixed income, such as senior citizens, disabled people and so forth, and other people who have businesses where, because of some zone change or something of that nature, they suddenly find themselves paying hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars more in their property taxes, which in some cases would force them to go out of business and which would be most unfortunate at a time in this province and in this Legislature when the emphasis is on trying to help small business people within the provincial community.

[3:45]

Another example we have is from the city of Kitchener, where a ratepayer experienced an increase in taxes of 4,300 per cent on an empty lot. His taxes go up from $39.10, which I agree is somewhat low for an empty lot, to $1,751.06. He found that increase extremely high and he obviously was going to appeal it, but if that assessment is correct it does mean that he has to experience a very sharp increase.

All this brings me to another point which I would like to raise with the minister right now, and that has to do with the transfer payments that the province is making to the municipalities in the province. I want to read into the record the release that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario made to the minister in 1979. It’s called: “AMO response to the provincial announcement of 1979 transfer payments to municipalities.” I’m sure the minister is familiar with this document but I also think that he probably appreciates having it read into the record so it’s there for posterity.

I quote: “At its 1978 annual conference, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, reacting to the structural changes at the provincial level following the resignation of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, issued a policy statement regarding future provincial-municipal financial relations. The spirit reflected in that statement flowed from the sincere hope that the new partnership being espoused by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and wholeheartedly supported by the association would foster mutual respect and trust between the province and its municipalities. Such a condition in many respects had been absent since the initial manipulation of the Edmonton commitment.

“AMO believes that it provided both the new Treasurer and the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with an unparalleled opportunity to develop the partnership anew. Even more basic however, was the municipalities’ willingness to permit the province to extricate itself from the millstone the Edmonton commitment had become.

“AMO came away from a November 16 meeting with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs believing that the government had accepted the municipal proposal that transfers to municipalities in 1979 would be ‘commensurate with the rate of growth of provincial expenditures.’ The association’s confidence was short lived however. Seven days later the Treasurer of Ontario advised the Legislature that while the government was prepared to accept the municipal transfer proposal, and while it was estimated that provincial expenditures would grow about six per cent, transfers to municipalities would average five per cent!

“At the December 8 Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee meeting the government’s dichotomous position was reaffirmed, continuing the same type of tactic used previously to avoid the intent of the original Edmonton commitment. Such action can only lead the association to believe that once again the province has abused the good faith shown in it by its municipalities and resorted to the type of bookkeeping legerdemain associated with past announcements.

“The recasting by the province of the Edmonton commitment and now its successor, has become an annual ritual. For 1976 the municipalities believed the province would live up to the Edmonton commitment; the province’s answer was to introduce the concept of overpayments. For 1978 the municipalities asked the province to live up to the Edmonton commitment. The province’s response was to redefine it -- retroactively, arbitrarily and unilaterally. This year, in a spirit of goodwill, the municipalities recommended that the Edmonton commitment be abandoned and that the rate of growth of provincial transfer payments to municipalities be commensurate with the rate of growth of provincial expenditures; the province’s reaction was to manipulate its expenditure figures in an attempt to prove that six per cent at the provincial level equals five per cent at the municipal level.

“The association is also concerned about the manner and timing of this year’s announcement. First of all, AMO believes it most unfortunate that the Treasurer of Ontario chose not to accompany the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee meeting to hear first hand the municipalities’ reaction to the transfer announcement.

“It was recognized that with two new ministers in key positions there naturally would be a delay in making the transfer announcement. However, once it did come, apart from announcing that the general increase would be limited to five per cent, the municipalities were told that they would have to wait for individual ministries to release the details of their particular transfers. What AMO anticipates will be a dribbling out of information over the next three months will only add to the confusion and in essence will mean a return to the exercise of individual ministry prerogatives to the detriment of the overall process. Clearly, the absence of an early, comprehensive announcement inhibits timely and realistic budget preparations for the municipalities which begin a new fiscal year on January 1.

“AMO is concerned with a statement made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee meeting that his ministry is just a ministry like all other provincial ministries and most be subject therefore to the same expenditure guidelines. That may be true for ministry operating expenditures but that is not the issue. Transfer payments to municipalities cannot be considered as just another ministry appropriation.

“As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested in the Legislature on November 21, local government is an order of government just as the federal or provincial governments are orders of government.

“While the establishment of overall expenditure guidelines may be a new departure for the province, municipalities have utilized this approach for some time. AMO understands the provincial government’s desire to achieve expenditure restraint, but does not accept the proposition expounded by the government that municipalities are not subject to the same financial pressure as it is. Like the province, municipalities are faced with certain expenditure commitments which cannot be arbitrarily restrained.

“Debt charges incurred on required municipal infrastructure during the rapid growth period of the past few years are a fixed commitment. In this respect, it should be remembered that not so long ago the Treasurer of Ontario was urging municipalities to make more use of their long-term borrowing capacities.

“Municipalities are committed to increase pension payments for their employees to meet the pension enrichments introduced in 1978 by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.

“Municipalities presently are committed to assuming their share of rapidly growing social service costs for such items as general welfare assistance, children’s services and extended care for senior citizens.

“The province’s decision to withdraw Ontario Provincial Police services from a number of municipalities has left those municipalities facing rapidly rising police costs. Presumably, there were off-setting savings at the provincial level.

“Several years ago the province encouraged municipalities to expand urban transit systems. Today the deficit’s from these operations continue to grow.

“Clearly, even if normal operating expenditures are constrained at the five per cent level, with the current level of provincial transfers there will have to be substantial property tax increases to meet the shortfall in transfer revenues.

“To understand the depth of despair and disappointment the association feels, it is only necessary to contrast the present position in which municipalities find themselves with the era of good faith which dominated provincial- municipal financial arrangements in the early 1970s:

“Municipalities had a revenue-sharing agreement” -- which had been formulated in 1973 in Edmonton, as the minister is well aware -- “now they must rely solely on government largesse -- ministry by ministry by ministry.

“Municipalities had a long-term commitment which facilitated planning; now they have no such guarantee.

“Municipalities were provided with early announcements of grant levels; now this ‘has disappeared.

“Municipalities were provided with a comprehensive announcement; now this is no longer the case.

“In conclusion, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario views with apprehension the significance of the 1979 transfer announcement. The association fears that it clearly portends a further deterioration of provincial-municipal relations.

“In the current atmosphere, it is difficult to see how the committee currently being constituted to study long-term provincial- municipal financial relations can possibly function. This is particularly true since municipalities already have expended expensive time, effort and resources dealing with such critical matters as property tax reform, grants reform and provincial-municipal transfers -- all to little avail.

“AMO applauded the announcement that the government was in accord with the municipal proposition, that transfer payments to the municipalities in 1979 increase at the same rate as provincial expenditures, only to be faced -- once again -- with the manipulation of figures that if it is not, at least gives the impression of, duplicity on the part of the province.”

That statement made by the association of municipalities on February 1, 1979, outlines the dilemma that the municipalities are faced with on a daily basis in trying to meet their financial commitments to their taxpayers and citizens. I am not sure but I hope that the present minister does not have the same attitude the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Treasurer of Ontario had -- namely, that the municipalities are not taxed enough. He said on more than one occasion that he thought that municipal property taxes weren’t high enough and there was no reason why they couldn’t go higher. I think he would find serious disagreement by municipal elected representatives and by the citizens of Ontario.

I appeal to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to give serious consideration to the brief that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has placed before him, dated February 1, 1979, and seriously try to restore the feeling of good faith that was evident in the early 1970s, particularly in the period after the Edmonton commitment in 1973. The municipalities would much appreciate that. I can’t emphasize that enough.

We on this side of the House would give him the kind of support he needs in order to try to live up to the commitments that the municipalities felt he had made last fall. If it is not possible to carry it through this year, we hope he will restore that good faith later this year and provide the municipalities with the kind of resource equalization payments, transfer payments and other kinds of payments they need and expect.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say, first of all, that I accept the explanation of the minister with regard to the purpose of this bill, which, I think is quite simple. It makes exceptions for those areas where section 86 has been invoked. The most important part of the bill is section 2, which provides for some interim ad hoc payments to municipalities where it has been proved that they have suffered rather severely because of an unfair equalization.

I think we all recognize that this is an interim measure only applicable for the one year. Because it was not necessary and because it had never been proposed by the former minister, I should say to the present minister that we welcome this bill and commend him for bringing it in.

[4:00]

I perhaps would make that commendation much more laudatory if we did not know the figures in it are really minimal figures. The minister may correct me if I am wrong, and I hope he will explain this, but I believe the equalization will be paid only to those found to be out by more than eight per cent.

Is that correct? Is he in fact, giving this ad hoc assistance to municipalities so those which have a six per cent or a seven per cent error in their equalization are receiving nothing? However, having said that, it is obviously an attempt on the part of the ministry to assist those which have been hurt the most.

I must say though I do not intend to get into the whole issue of transfer payments, as did the member for Waterloo North. It seems to me this bill deals solely with the matter of payment because of unequal equalization factors and does not deal with the whole question of transfer payments. I must say this bill is an admission of the mistake the government over there made in freezing assessment in 1970. I have never yet heard a reasonable explanation as to why those equalization factors were frozen.

If we extrapolate the figures which we have before us at this time of some $6,000,000 being transferred to the municipalities as payment for above an eight per cent error for one year, we can make some kind of an estimate of what the municipalities -- those same municipalities and the others where there have been unfair equalization factors -- have lost in the way of equalization grants.

In my understanding, for instance, in the case of Windsor, their equalization or their correction was about 18 per cent. Perhaps the minister could tell me if that figure is wrong. In fact, they only got over the eight per cent which would have been a 10 per cent adjustment -- the difference between the 18 and the eight -- and they got $3,000,000. If they had had the whole 18 per cent they would have had something like $7,000,000. We do not know for how many years that figure of $7,000,000 would have applied. It would have applied this year; perhaps something less would have applied in previous years.

If you spread that over the 10-year period when equalization factors have been frozen, we are certainly talking in the neighbourhood of $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 that Windsor alone has lost. They are getting $3,000,000 paid to them as compensation for a loss of some $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 which they would have received if the equalization factors had never been frozen.

In the case of Welland this figure would have been in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000; granted, this is a ballpark figure. Welland is receiving $441,000.

If we spread that across all of those municipalities which have lost money -- transfer payments -- from the provincial government because of the frozen equalization factors, we are talking in the tens of millions of dollars. Taxpayers have lost perhaps $100,000,000 at least because of the equalization factors being frozen by this government way back in 1970. Of course, the new one won’t be applicable until 1980.

I recognize of course that had there been an equalization factor there may have been other municipalities whose transfer payments would have been lowered -- resource equalization would have been lowered -- because of that. Nevertheless, if we in this Legislature are concerned and if the government was concerned about a degree of fairness over those years, they would have been making some adjustment during those years. Municipalities have unfairly lost money to which they were entitled.

It has been stated by the member for Waterloo North that a member of his caucus was the first one to make the proposal for these payments. I won’t deny that, but I would point out that it was this party that proposed in 1976, and moved an amendment in 1977, and then last fall, 1978, tabled another amendment to lift the freeze that brought about the new equalization. That cannot be denied.

Mr. B. Newman: The minister first admitted it to me by letter. It’s the first time he ever admitted making a mistake.

Mr. Swart: Their application was for ad hoc grants. Our amendment, which was first proposed in 1976, was to lift the freeze on equalization so that there would be a fair system across this province. I say to you here, if the Liberal Party had supported ns in 1977 in that amendment, this year Windsor would be getting its $7,000,000 and all the other municipalities across this province that are losing, whether they are above the eight per cent or below the eight per cent, would also be getting theirs. There can be no denying that fact.

Mr. Epp: Now the reason.

Mr. Swart: The reason the municipalities are not getting it this year, the amount to which they are entitled, is because the Liberal Party did not support our amendment.

Mr. Roy: It would have been out of order.

Mr. Swart: It was not out of order; it was not ruled out of order. It was voted on in committee in this House, and the Liberals voted against it. I have to say, in all fairness to the Liberal Party --

Mr. J. Reed: Since when have you been fair to the Liberal Party?

Mr. Swart: -- it is true that their critic at that time didn’t really understand what the amendment meant.

Mr. Epp: For the record, tell us.

Mr. Swart: Maybe that was our fault because we didn’t explain the amendment well enough. But, in fact, they did not understand what that meant. I would just like to read into the record --

Mr. Epp: For the record.

Mr. Swart: -- the events last year leading up to what is taking place here today with regard to the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) saying: “If we were to accept this amendment as put forward by the member tonight” -- referring to my amendment -- “it would cause complete chaos in assessment in the other 800-odd municipalities in the province of Ontario.”

Mr. Ruston: That is quite correct.

Mr. Swart: That is the same amendment we passed this last fall, and the Liberals voted for it.

Mr. Philip: Another flip-flop.

Mr. Swart: The member goes on to say: “If one was to accept this, as I said before, it would assist one or two municipalities but perhaps cause chaos in all those other municipalities. I can just see every municipality” -- and I am still quoting the member for Erie -- “every clerk, every treasurer making application to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing on the matter of equalized assessment. I feel you are only going to open a can of worms and perhaps cause serious difficulty to the municipality and to almost every taxpayer in the community.

“First of all, you are going to have a person in the community say: ‘I feel I have always paid higher taxes than my neighbour; I want to appeal my assessment on that basis.’ I can just see the assessment appeal tribunal flooded with assessment appeals under this particular amendment.”

That amendment in 1977, as in 1978, had nothing to do with individual appeals of assessment, as the member for Waterloo North now well knows. It was to provide for equalization between municipalities so they would pay their fair share into counties and into education costs, and receive their fair share of transfer payments, of resource equalization grants. The Liberals voted against that in 1977.

Even the minister at that time -- that was the Honourable Mrs. Scrivener, and I know that wouldn’t be true of the present minister -- didn’t understand that. She was saying: “If this amendment were to be incorporated within the bill, it would create assessment chaos in Ontario. Most definitely it would, Mr. Chairman, because it does introduce market value.” She was saying it would introduce market value at that time.

“The equalization must be based on market value, and that is according to section 27 of the act, as the member must know.”

We passed the amendment last fall, and it did not introduce market value. All that amendment is going to do is provide that an equalization will be in effect next year and that municipalities will get their fair share of the very minimal provincial grants that are passed out to municipalities; they will pay their fair share into the counties and regions and into the boards of education. That is all the amendment did in 1977, and that is all it did in 1978.

Today we are talking about an ad hoc payment of $6,000,000 when, if the Liberals had voted for our amendment in 1977, we would be having $100,000,000 being transferred this year to those municipalities that were rightly entitled to it because their equalization factor was at fault. It is only $6,000,000, but we are going to support this, because we think that a crumb of a loaf, or a very little bit of a loaf, is better than none.

We look forward to the new equalization factor being used next year in this province, and undoubtedly it will give a greater degree of equity.

Before I conclude, I would like to ask the minister on what basis the equalization was made to provide these additional grants. Was it on the work that had been done on market value, or has there been a fast equalization done since the amendment was passed? The reason I ask is that the figures are so much at variance with what was suggested by the previous minister as to the municipalities that were entitled to it and the amount to which the municipalities were entitled.

Finally, I have to say in conclusion that I doubt if there has been anything that this government has done over the past 10 years -- and that is a pretty broad statement -- that has shown as much ineptness and mismanagement as what it has done in the whole assessment field. To spend $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 of taxpayers’ money on market value assessment and then abandon it, as this government has done, shows a very high degree of mismanagement.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill; but in doing so I would like to bring to the minister’s attention that this legislation could have been passed and the problem resolved years ago.

If I am not mistaken, it was back in 1973 that the finance department of the city of Windsor, in comparing that city with the city of London, found that everything was not according to Hoyle; that Windsor was being unjustly treated as far as the resource equalization formula was concerned. It was in 1975 that Windsor first appealed to the cabinet in the city of London.

Bob Agnew and the mayor of the city, Bert Weeks, as well as other members of city council, made a very strong plea and presented a fairly substantial brief to the cabinet at that time, showing where the resource equalization grant did not treat the community of Windsor in the way that it should have been treated.

That was repeated again in 1976; I can recall talking about it myself in the House, practically reading the entire brief to put it in the record, so the ministry officials could study Windsor’s submission to the cabinet and act accordingly.

[4:15]

I have had the opportunity to speak on this issue in 1975, in 1976, in 1977 and in 1978; but it was not until 1977, I think, that the then Treasurer did admit in a letter to me that there were inequities. But no solution was being proposed. Once the city found out there were inequities in the resource equalization grant, members can rest assured the city gathered its forces and did everything it possibly could do to emphasize to the ministry that a remedy was needed immediately.

I can recall a petition being signed in the community by well over 15,000 individuals. The petition was signed in the various shopping malls in the community and was strongly endorsed by the chamber of commerce. Practically every organization in the community supported the city in its stand for a better distribution of the grants. Finally, this year the present minister realized the community was not being treated as fairly as it should have been and, as a result, introduced the legislation we have here today.

I can only say that the $3,000,000 the ministry is actually going to be giving as a one-time grant to the city of Windsor is not even the interest on the money it would have owed them had it treated them fairly right from 1975 on. From what I understand, at one time we figured there was approximately $10,000,000 to $11,000,000 and a total of about $30,000,000 that the city was short-changed. Invested in securities, $30,000,000 today would certainly have presented us with at least a $3,000,000 return.

I support the legislation. I’m glad to see that once and finally the government has seen the light of day and decided that at least it can meet the communities, not half way but one tenth of the way. We appreciate the fact we are going to get the $3,000,000. It will be put to good use in the community. Our only regret is that we’re kind of sorry the government couldn’t have given us our fair share back when we first pointed out to it the errors in the way the resource equalization grant was calculated.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly. I want to point out to the minister that today’s victory for Windsor is as much a victory for the mayor of the city of Windsor, Mayor Weeks, as it is for the New Democratic Party. I seriously believe that if it weren’t for the pressure from the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), our revenue critic, to get the freeze on the resource equalization factor removed last year, after which the Liberal Party finally saw the light of day and decided to come along with us last year, if it weren’t for those moves on the part of the New Democratic Party, Windsor would not receive the $3,000,000 it received this year.

Over the years Mayor Weeks has fought very hard for this particular grant. He spearheaded the attack against the government, collected petitions, got the labour unions behind him, got other communities across this province behind him and made them aware of their problems, wrote letters and had constant meetings with the local members of provincial parliaments about this problem. Windsor council passed resolutions that were circulated among all the municipalities.

As I say, this victory today for Windsor is as much a victory for the mayor of the city of Windsor as anyone else. I think he needs to be congratulated. I also think the former member who represented my riding, Fred Burr, deserves some credit, as he raised this matter back when he was first elected and when the mayor of the city of Windsor first started this fight. I’m sure Fred Burr is aware of the victory and he should share a part of the credit for today’s bill.

I do want to say to the minister that I hope he’ll talk to the Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) because, as I understand it, Windsor and other communities --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Gee, I thought you would give the minister some credit.

Mr. Cooke: -- are also missing out on a fair amount of money through the same problem through grants from the Ministry of Education. While we’re getting $3,000,000, the government does owe us $50,000,000. Paying us what amounts to six per cent of what we deserve is a pretty good deal for the government, but not that good a deal for the city of Windsor.

Windsor has been among the highest-charging cities for property tax for many years. I think we’re number two or number three right now in mill rates across the province, which does have an effect on industries that come to the city. Chrysler, GM, Hiram Walker and so on are paying much higher property tax than they would be if we received our fair share and that, obviously, is a deterrent for them to expand or locate new operations in Windsor. Over the last couple of years, we’ve had an unemployment rate in Windsor of around 12 per cent and I would think, if anything, the government should be trying to lower the mill rate even more in Windsor in order to attract more industry to that city.

I know the minister said when he was at the sod-turning for the Ford Motor Company in Windsor that we didn’t really need the $50,000,000 because we were getting $28,000,000 from the province for the Ford Motor Company. I hope he doesn’t use that same argument today to say everything has been equalized because that argument just doesn’t wash either with myself or with the people of Windsor.

To conclude, I see the member for Essex North is still here, and I know that when the Liberal Party --

Mr. Ruston: I’m always here, Dave.

Mr. Cooke: -- in 1977 voted against our amendment that would have solved this problem for 1978, he was down at Windsor attending a meeting and he tried to justify the Liberal position. It was very difficult to justify something indefensible.

Mr. Ruston: No problem. I’ll send you an article from the Windsor Star from Mayor Blundy of Sarnia.

Mr. Cooke: I read the Windsor Star from cover to cover.

Mr. Ruston: He understood it better than you fellows.

Mr. Cooke: The fact of the matter is the Liberal Party didn’t understand the problem --

Hon. Mr. Walker: Would you guys stop attacking each other?

Mr. Cooke: -- in 1977 and, thanks to the Liberal Party of this province, Windsor lost out on money in 1978. We would have got the $7,000,000 last year. We would have got more money in 1979 --

Mr. Bradley: You are being overly partisan.

Mr. Cooke: -- and the problem would have been resolved, but because the members of the Liberal Party didn’t understand the situation and the members of the government didn’t understand the situation --

Mr. Epp: I didn’t know we were running the administration of this province. Thanks for the credit.

Mr. Cooke: It’s too bad they didn’t have a member like our member from Welland.

Mr. Ruston: That is the radio fellow. That is the fellow that owns the radio station.

Mr. Cooke: You people were saying that night that the member from Welland didn’t understand the problem and he couldn’t implement his proposal.

Mr. Epp: Are you giving us credit for this now?

Mr. Cooke: Today his position has been vindicated and once again the New Democratic Party has been proved right and the people of Windsor, again, are benefiting from good NDP representation.

Mr. Epp: That is twice this year you are right.

Mr. J. Reed: If there is nothing to say he will say it.

Mr. Philip: Give us another flip-flop.

Mr. Ruston: I just have a few words to say with regard to Bill 18, on equalization grants. It is a bit of a problem for some of the people in the county of Essex. Out of the 21 municipalities, 15 received some form of increase because of this new legislation. Naturally, any amount extra is appreciated.

I’ve had calls from the reeves of a couple of municipalities and the mayor of another one that they are concerned that one of them got such a little bit and a number of other ones got nothing whatsoever. Of course, by doing the proper figuring, I’m sure someone will show they weren’t entitled to anything, but the old saying is that figures don’t lie but liars can figure.

The problem, I think, is with our grant structure -- per capita grants, police grants, highway grants, education grants -- which is rather complicated. A lot of people don’t take the time to understand or figure them out. To a layman who sees the report that just came out it’s a little concerning because Windsor received $3,097,000, a little over $15 per capita, and the town of Tecumseh with a population of 5,000 received $2,100, which is about 40 cents per capita.

The township of Tilbury North have asked their auditors to look over the whole situation of grants and find out why they weren’t entitled to something extra. It is a little confusing to them.

However, Windsor did receive this, and certainly Mayor Weeks has worked a long time on it as well as many other people. I can tell him right now that he doesn’t have to worry about where this money can go. There are two things in the county of Essex, being from the riding of Essex North, where I can tell him he can certainly use some of that money. One of them is on a sanitary landfill site. I am getting completely fed up with taking all the junk and garbage from Windsor out in my riding. It is unbelievable. In fact, they are talking now of setting up roadblocks of human beings to stop it from coming out.

Mr. Bradley: Including the members?

Mr. Conway: There are no Tories in Essex, but there is a lot of garbage.

Mr. Ruston: It is time the city started putting in its own system of handling its garbage. We are not going to stand for it much longer. Mr. Weeks can use some of that money right now to start putting in his own garbage disposal system.

Mr. Mackenzie: Did you clear that with the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman)?

Mr. Conway: Send it to Agincourt.

Mr. Ruston: The people of Essex county will be very happy because we are using up the most valuable farmland in Ontario to take their garbage.

He is worrying about the rates for suburban roads. He can put some of the money in suburban roads because, after all, they are getting all that taxation from the industrial buildings in Windsor. We are furnishing houses for the people. It is about time they shared a little more of the suburban roads.

I can tell the mayor of Windsor that there are two places he had better start looking at very fast or he may have a little bit of -- I am not sure we are going to have any kind of confrontation, but from watching television on Sunday night, I wouldn’t be surprised if they put up a few roadblocks to stop all those dirty garbage trucks and the papers and everything else that go with the garbage and blow all around Maidstone township.

Mr. Roy: You don’t have to take that kind of abuse.

Mr. Charlton: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. Reed: It will be the first time in NDP history.

Mr. Charlton: I don’t want to have to rub things in for too long. I just want to say that I am happy to see this bill here this afternoon. I am very proud of the efforts this caucus made to help this happen. I am having some difficulty understanding the position the Liberal caucus is taking this afternoon, in fact a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. Bradley: You always have difficulty understanding other caucuses.

Mr. Ruston: You have difficulty understanding, period.

Mr. Charlton: The member for St. Catharines, for example, has been complaining in his own municipality about how St. Catharines isn’t going to get any money this year.

Mr. Bradley: Are you supporting us now?

Mr. Charlton: What is painfully obvious about that complaint and what is painfully strange about it is that if the Liberal caucus had supported our amendment in the fall of 1977, the first fall that I was here, St. Catharines would be in a position of getting full equalization this year.

Mr. Bradley: No, we would have got nothing one year earlier.

Mr. Charlton: They are not, because the government party and the Liberal Party didn’t see fit to remove the freeze on equalization in 1977. It seems strange to me that we are all here applauding this action this afternoon when on at least two occasions in this House that I can recall since I was elected, members of the government party and members of the Liberal caucus got up and spoke very adamantly and very strongly against removing the freeze because of the chaos they claimed it would cause.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Charlton: Now we are here applauding it as if we had all been for it all the time. It just seems to me it should be made quite clear that, although we have this bill here this afternoon as a government bill, it didn’t come easily and the government didn’t present it all that willingly and not even on the first shot around.

I myself worked extremely hard over the past summer and last fall discussing the possibilities with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck). It wasn’t until the very last minute the Minister of Revenue admitted his willingness to deal with this particular line of action we are dealing with here tonight.

[4:30]

Mr. Bradley: Pressure from the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Charlton: We are also in the position -- although they didn’t come out against it this year -- of having a great deal of difficulty in convincing the Liberal caucus that they should have supported the amendment we were prepared to propose this year --

Mr. Swart: Again:

Mr. Charlton: -- again, for the third time -- if the government had not finally come forward with its own amendment. I think it should just be made very clear that none of these actions we’re all applauding here today came very easily from the government party. Certainly, they weren’t supported immediately and forcibly by the members of the Liberal caucus. The complaints some of them are making here today, in reality lie on their own shoulders. I just wish that on occasion people would have the guts to let people know why things really happen around this province.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, our first regret in the city of St. Catharines -- and I’m sure this is shared by some of the other municipalities perhaps -- is the fact that we did not have an earlier decision on this matter.

Hon. Mr. Walker: You are wearing a button. What does that say?

Mr. Bradley: We know that municipalities across the province attempt to do some preliminary work, in terms of striking their budgets even in January and February. Certainly, they are well into them in March and April. We were hopeful that a decision on at least the interim payments would have been forthcoming earlier, in order to facilitate some of that budgetary planning.

In St. Catharines, strangely enough, we were often at odds with the former provincial Treasurer and some of the policies he implemented in the Niagara Peninsula, particularly as they affected the constituency of St. Catharines. When the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs visited us recently, I found myself in the unique position of agreeing with the former provincial Treasurer, and disagreeing with the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, as to the formula to be applied, recognizing that the new minister has used a formula he feels is fair and equitable.

I never did feel I would come to the day when I would be casting my lot with Mr. McKeough. However, on this occasion, the figures provided -- particularly those concerning Windsor and Sarnia -- led us to believe that perhaps the city of St. Catharines would be the recipient of some $1,200,000 per year and, therefore, that a pro-rated interim payment might be forthcoming from the province. So naturally, we were disappointed when we found that not this formula but a new formula was to be used.

Our disappointment naturally was the joy of other municipalities. I’m sure the member for Welland-Thorold is delighted with the fact that both Welland and Thorold are to benefit from the new formula. One wonders whether, after all these years, he has been able to cultivate the kind of rapport with the government that has enabled it to bring forth a formula that would benefit his constituencies to such an extent. Of course, we recognize that’s probably not the case.

Mr. Cooke: Just good representation.

Mr. Bradley: So we were disappointed that the cupboard was bare when it came to the city of St. Catharines, in terms of that interim payment.

We recognize, and the minister was kind enough to point this out on the occasion of his visit, that not all the moneys were used. If certain municipalities across the province are able to present compelling cases to the province for use of those leftover funds and justify their cases in an appropriate manner, such funds might be forthcoming. We’re just a little bit encouraged by that and happy that the minister was able to provide this information on that occasion.

I know the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), who shares at least part of the city of St. Catharines with me in terms of representation, was making representations through cabinet channels while I was making representations on the other side. At least, he asked me to say that during my remarks.

We recognize on this side of the House, as I’m sure many members of the government do too, that municipalities -- and the reason we like to see these interim payments is as a shot in the arm -- municipalities in this particular year, and certainly last year, are facing great difficulties in terms of deciding to increase the property tax -- which most people consider to be the most regressive kind of tax available to us and which is the only form of tax available to municipalities -- or being forced to cut back what some consider to be essential services because of the lack of the level of provincial funding that they would like to see.

For instance -- and, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me for one sentence in varying from the bill -- it is my understanding that the per capita grant to libraries is frozen again this year and that the only way that municipalities can gain further revenues in this regard is through an increase in population. We see not necessarily what one would call cutbacks; not the kind of increases that we would need in municipalities at least to keep up with the rate of inflation or even just below the rate of inflation.

I am optimistic in the second aspect. The first aspect I mentioned was those extra funds which the minister indicated are available.

The second aspect, and perhaps in the long run the most important aspect, is -- we cannot say the thawing of the factors -- the unfreezing of the factors that has taken place which will enable, at long last, the various municipalities across the province to receive the appropriate amount in resource equalization grants. We see this as being a very positive step, disappointed as we are that we are not receiving some of the interim payments.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few short comments, but I suppose my opening comment should be that the wheel that squeaks the most gets the most grease. Perhaps I can apply that saying to some of the municipalities in this bill that will receive additional resource equalization grants.

I am concerned about the formula that is presented in Bill 18. As I look at the bill and the municipalities within the regional municipality of Niagara that will be receiving additional grants related to Bill 18, I do not know whether I can justify the minister’s moving in this direction. As I recall the implementation of regional government in Niagara and the bill that established the regional municipality of Niagara, one of my comments at the time the bill was introduced was that revaluation of assessment was necessary before we entered into regional government.

I can recall my days on Welland county council, and we had difficulties, as the member for Essex North has mentioned, relating to suburban roads. At different times, the chairmen of the Welland county roads committee questioned the share that the city of Welland was contributing to the county, because we did not have a true picture of the assessment in the city of Welland.

At that particular time I thought the county assessment was perhaps one of the best in Ontario. We had an exceptionally good county assessor, Mr. Ralph Wilson, who I think is with the department at the present time. We often questioned this matter of assessment. We tried to compare certain houses within the city of Welland with houses of similar nature and construction in other parts of the county, but we could not get a clear picture. We had problems with one or two municipalities.

The point I raise with the minister is this: Equalized assessment apparently is based upon the principle that industry, say, should pay some portion of it. As I look at the present assessment in the city of Welland -- I am glad the minister lifted the ban on it -- I hope we will have revaluation of assessment throughout the region. I think there are many municipalities that are handicapped by the freeze on assessment, or reassessment, throughout the region.

Mr. Swart: Then why did you vote to lift the freeze in 1977?

Mr. Haggerty: Because, under section 86 of the Assessment Act, we said it was going to cause some difficulties in certain municipalities throughout Ontario, and that has come to the forefront already. We can take Hamilton --

Mr. Swart: What has section 86 got to do with the freeze on assessment?

Mr. Haggerty: It relates to assessment, if the member isn’t quite aware of it, and that is the point I am trying to state. There is inequity in assessment as it relates to equalization grants; I am aware of that. All I am suggesting to the minister is I feel, or in my opinion, although the cities of Welland and St. Catharines did receive additional grants, I think he is going to cause injustice to other communities within that region. I can think of the city of Port Colborne and their tax base, as it relates to residential and business, or commercial, or industry; and the town of Fort Erie, on the same basis. They don’t have the same wealth of industrial assessment as Welland or St. Catharines.

When he brings in a bill like this he is saying, “Here, we are going to apply additional grants, additional subsidy to that municipality.” I question whether it is justified. As I said before, the wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most grease, I guess. In this particular instance, I feel this is what has happened.

I suggest before any additional equalization grant is provided to the communities of Ontario, he should take a close look at the assessment practices carried on and look at other assessments within that region or within that county structure. There is an injustice there and as my colleague says about Windsor, perhaps with their tax base they don’t require the additional unconditional grants. All I am saying is I think he has opened the door now and he had better take a close look at revaluation of assessment.

The first mistake he made was freezing assessments. He has got a tiger by the horns here, I will tell the House right now, because he doesn’t know what to do with the freezing of assessments.

Mr. Ruston: How do you get a tiger by the horns?

Mr. Haggerty: Well, there is a lot of bull that goes behind it and that is what we have heard over the last 10 years here in the Legislature. He has created a monster there and he doesn’t know what to do with it.

Mr. Ruston: That is right.

Mr. Haggerty: The whole crunch of this thing is he doesn’t know what to do with it. By changing this bill now -- the minister is smiling perhaps at that comment -- he has got a problem and it is causing unjust inequity in assessment in communities throughout Ontario.

I am all for market value assessment and there is no reason they can’t move in this direction. They will have to move with some caution, there is no doubt about it, because the impact is going to be tremendous to certain taxpayers in communities in the province. It is his responsibility as to how he is going to tackle it and what he is going to do with it, but he has created that monster. I suggest to him the bill may mean great things for the city of Welland or the city of St. Catharines, but I can tell him there are other inequities within that region.

Mr. Swart: Welland and Thorold, Ray; St. Catharines didn’t get any.

Mr. Haggerty: There are other municipalities that pay a large apportionment of the cost of regional government in Niagara that can’t well afford it without a good sound tax base and they don’t have it. Let’s take a good look at this thing; let’s take a look at revaluation of assessment within the regional municipality of Niagara. I have seen so many reports on it and so many different approaches to it, no wonder the minister is confused, or his predecessor was, because he didn’t know in which direction to go.

Mr. Swart: He went the right direction -- out.

Mr. Haggerty: He can put anything in that computer and come up with an answer, but is it the right one? I give the member for Welland-Thorold credit for bulldogging the minister into bringing something to that area, but I think there are other communities within that region that perhaps need increased unconditional grants.

Mr. Wildman: They need better representation.

Mr. Haggerty: I suggest the minister look into that area. Again, I suggest that before he implements any restructuring of county government, revaluation of assessment should be the top priority so we can correct the problem there before it gets out of hand as it has now in different municipalities within a region or a county.

[4:45]

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my friend, the member for St. Catharines, the member for Brock speaks with me on his behalf quite regularly at quite great length. But he is also I think quite capable of speaking on behalf of the region. I think the message from the Niagara region reaches me from all sources.

I was most pleased by my visit there to learn about some of the problems in the Niagara region. I am sure my friend from Welland-Thorold probably will disagree but I learned one of the major needs in the Niagara region is for an economic study on industrial development and growth.

Mr. Swart: I do not disagree with you at all. Bring in the study and bring in the industries.

Hon. Mr. Wells: For too long all of us here have been led to believe that whole region was nothing but tender fruit and grape-vines. While we want to preserve those, we sure need industry in that region, and I told them we have to do something about that.

Mr. Swart: I am sure you never thought all the Niagara Peninsula was grapes and peaches.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Mackenzie: The problem is whenever you want to develop something it is on the fruit land.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly the key message to me was that the problems of the region of Niagara could be greatly alleviated by a little industrial development and growth down there. I am certainly going to do what I can to see that can happen.

Mr. Haggerty: It is all taking place in Welland-Thorold and in St. Catharines.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is all taking place on good fruit land.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In general terms, dealing with some of the things concerning transfers to municipalities -- and of course this bill is transferring more money to municipalities -- the statement the member for Waterloo North read from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario I thought was a rather ill-conceived document they sent to us. I appreciate they are probably playing a little politics with us too. But we discussed it at length at the final arrangements subcommittee of the Provincial- Municipal Liaison Committee.

I am sure my friend also knows the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee presented what I thought was a very reasoned response to our statement this year. We indicated we were going to achieve transfer payments at around the same percentage of growth and direct operating expenses of this government, which is five per cent. That is what we told them. They came back to us and said --

Mr. Swart: Read the statement Miller made.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am talking about the statement I made to them. The statement I made said it would be about the same. They said to us, “You increase your grants to us by about the same percentage as you are going to increase your own spending.”

The fact of the matter is the actual percentage increase in transfers to municipalities will not be determined until we are further into this year. I would say when we table our document here in a few days on financial assistance to municipalities the growth rate may be around 5.3 per cent. When the year is out it may be closer to six per cent; it may be right at five per cent. The fact of the matter is the municipal liaison committee said to us, “Make it six per cent or add another $16,000,000.” We are only talking about $16,000,000 difference between the five and the six per cent in grants to municipalities, excluding school boards.

As I am pointing out to the members now, when all is said and done and the books are balanced, we may be very close. So really the kind of statement that AMO made to us I thought was not particularly called for. Maybe they made it for their own political reasons; I accept that; we all make those kinds of statements. We have read it, I have responded to it. I am not going to read into the record my letter which I have written to about 253 municipalities that sent me a copy of the AMO statement and said, “What about it?”

The fact still stands, notwithstanding that statement, that we do have a long-term fiscal arrangement subcommittee meeting and AMO and the other municipal associations are taking part under the aegis of the municipal liaison committee. We are talking about long-term fiscal arrangements. We are talking about how the province and the municipalities can share revenue. I hope that out of that is going to come some new arrangement.

Notwithstanding that kind of statement there is a high degree of co-operation and co-ordination going on between ourselves and the municipalities. This bill represents a part of that process.

The member for Welland-Thorold asked why equalization factors were frozen in 1970. The equalization factors, as I am told, were not very accurate. Those that were in place in 1970 were certainly not very accurate, compared to market value assessment. Because at that time we embarked upon the kind of work that would perhaps lead to the imposition of market value assessment, it was felt that the whole process could carry on best if the factors were frozen, reassessment took place and then the whole thing was assessed and put in place.

As we all know, history shows us that didn’t happen. The process of reassessment and of consideration of market value assessment was put off, year by year, and the factors remained frozen. That brought us to last fall, when it was decided that, once the imposition of market value assessment had been put on the shelf, so to speak, as a massive provincial project that would occur all at once, once that was put to rest last summer, the idea of unfreezing those factors certainly had to come to the fore, as it did.

My colleague the Minister of Revenue brought forward certain proposals to unfreeze the factors. We looked at using new factors for the year 1979, but it was obviously too late to introduce them in a proper manner and to have them in place for the taxation and apportionment system that would be used in 1979. So the announcement was made that we would bring in new factors this year, in 1979, allow for all the processes that will occur, such as appeals, et cetera, and then have those factors in place for 1980. That is what is going to happen. Those factors will be announced very shortly -- by July -- and then they will be used for 1980.

I want to read again, in case the members have forgotten it, one of the paragraphs from the Minister of Revenue’s statement when he made that announcement. He said: “Even though the use of the new factors will cause a redistribution of grants among municipalities and school boards -- there, of course, would be no point in using them if there were no redistribution -- no municipality or school board will receive less grant in 1980 because of the introduction of new factors.” I think it is important to remember that: no municipality or school board is going to receive less grant in 1980 because of the introduction of the new factors which will be in place.

Mr. Epp: In dollars, but not in per cent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am talking about less grant, in dollars, in 1980. Let’s remember that. That’s the pledge we put in with the introduction of the new factors, which the members will have a chance to see and we will all have a chance to talk about as the year unfolds.

That being in place, we decided that because there certainly were some inequities, some perceived inequities, we should put in at least an ad hoc program for this year to bridge the gap. That is what we are talking about in this bill, an ad hoc program to bridge the gap until this plan comes in, and remembering the pledge we have made as far as this plan is concerned. Here we have the legislative authority to pay some ad hoc grants to municipalities that have been affected because of the frozen factors.

I was asked how we arrived at the municipalities that would get some of the money that was available this year for the ad hoc grants. I think it was outlined in the statement I sent around when we sent the list of the 49 -- and it’s 49, not 39 -- municipalities. It may be that the last page of the copy of the statement which the member for Waterloo North has is missing; there are 39 on the first two; and then there are some on the last page. If the member has the ones from Stormont down to Waterloo, he should get 49.

On the statement we sent around when we announced these around the middle of March, the members will find the explanation of how we arrived at who would receive the money and how it would be allotted. In order to assess the impact, we calculated the 1979 resource equalization grants entitlements on the basis of the regulations. Then we compared that figure with what would have been payable had the 1978 local assessment been based on the 1975 market value, which is the latest market value data that the Ministry of Revenue’s assessment department has available.

We decided there was justification for a special payment to those municipalities where the increase in the grants -- that is, the increase in the grants using the 1975 market value figures over what was used, which is the normal way of calculating the resource equalization grants -- would have reduced the 1978 levy by eight per cent or more. All those municipalities where, if they had got the difference, the levy would have been reduced by eight per cent or more were then considered eligible.

Having by means of this formula determined the municipalities eligible for special payments, in order to fit in with the money which we had available -- which was not an unlimited amount and was in fact a set amount of money -- it was then further decided that the grant would be one third of the potential gain.

When the city of Sarnia says, for instance, that the $411,000 it received is not what it was expecting and quotes a larger figure, it actually is a third of the amount it would have gained had we been using the market value assessment figure. In the same vein, the $3,000,000 that Windsor got would have been three times that or $9,000,000, which is about the figure that the mayor constantly quotes to us as being the amount it is losing because the new factors are not there.

When one applies the formulas we have applied, one will see that we have used a fairly equitable system with a special notching provision so that at the bottom of the list there weren’t some who gained a lot more than those which would have been immediately below the eight per cent cutoff figure. By using that special formula there, we arrived at 49 municipalities that could share in the roughly $6,600,000 we had available.

It may not be the world’s most perfect system, but it’s the best system we have been able to figure out to distribute $6,600,000 on an ad hoc basis in a program that is only for one year and which will not be necessary next year because of the unfrozen factors in the commitment that we have given.

So I think this bill is equitable and fair. I know there are areas like St. Catharines that really felt, because of commitments or statements that were made, particularly by my predecessor, that they were entitled to something, but just happen to fall below the level in the formula. In the St. Catharines case, it is quite simple, as I explained at the time. The eight per cent cut off meant that St. Catharines, which was at about a five per cent figure, just didn’t qualify. Conversely, we had the mayors of Thorold and Welland coming and asking me why they were getting money. They somehow didn’t seem to realize that they were entitled to it. However, I must tell the honourable members that nobody has sent it back.

Mr. Swart: Before the minister sits down, what was the basis for the equalization factors he used?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The basis was 1975 market value data. We used actual 1975 market value data and used that as the basis for the equalization factors that were used, as opposed to the 1970 ones which are used to calculate the resource equalization grant at the present time, and then we took the difference.

I am happy that the members are supporting this bill. If we can pass it fairly expeditiously now, we can get out the money which has been promised to the 49 municipalities that will share in this special grant.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

Mr. Speaker: Since we’ve concluded this afternoon’s business, we’re going to call it six o’clock. We will resume at eight o’clock.

The House recessed at 5 p.m.