Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALES TAX ON ENTERTAINMENT

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Last week the Leader of the Opposition raised in the Legislature the issue of retail sales tax on admissions to places of amusement. For many years, sales tax exemptions have been granted to non-profit, charitable and sporting organizations as well as to performances using Canadian talent.

In recent years, however, the number and variety of organizations seeking exemptions have increased rapidly, with the result that it became apparent that the process of granting exemptions needed to be improved to make it more consistent, fair and clear. In recognition of this, three principles were introduced in amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act, subsequent to the budget on April 10 last: the increase in the numbers of organizations qualifying for automatic exemptions; removing existing size and number of performance limitations; and making qualifications for exemptions clear and exemptions more quickly obtained.

Consequently, recent amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act contained four major measures concerning tax on admissions to amusements: First, the basic tax-free level of admissions price was raised from $3 to $3.50. This itself will automatically grant exemption to a larger number of community and charitable entertainments and small theatre groups.

Second, charitable organizations and their affiliates, amateur sport organizations and non-profit community service groups will now be automatically exempt if they qualify under the federal Income Tax Act for tax-free status. This will eliminate the need for such organizations to apply to the Ministry of Revenue for each and every performance or event.

Third, new provisions were introduced to grant exemptions to a wide range of amateur athletic associations and affiliates as identified for public assistance by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Fourth, the exemption for commercial profit-making entertainment using Canadian performances was removed. The main purpose of this move was to put all profit-making entertainment on the same tax basis. The government fully recognizes this last measure may affect some Canadian-talent performances. However, I also wish to remind members that provision remains in the act which will allow relief to be continued where warranted, as has always been the case. On this basis the government will continue to review individual cases and make decisions on the merit of applications.

Finally, we also prepared to consider relief where contracts or commitments have been made on the basis of the provisions of the act previously in effect.

WINDSOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to give the House a brief progress report on our litigation with the Metropolitan Hospital at Windsor.

Mr. S. Smith: May we have a copy of that statement?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think they have been sent. If not, they are on their way.

Mr. McClellan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would do us I the courtesy of providing the statement before he starts, as the rules require.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will be glad to sit down. I understood it had been sent around.

Mrs. Campbell: The rules require it. He never pays any attention.

Mr. Speaker: Are they being distributed now?

Mr. McClellan: Ask him. We haven’t got them.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister may proceed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, although we have not yet received a copy of the order which was made on Friday, I understand Mr. Justice Trainor agreed to our request for an adjournment of the action on condition that the planned reduction of 25 active treatment beds, which the hospital has challenged, be deferred pending a hearing which we expect in a month.

When Mr. Justice Trainor’s order becomes available, it will be reviewed by the law officers of the crown and I can assure the House we will be guided by their advice in regard to the order of the courts.

I don’t think it would be proper to say more than this at the present time. The case has not been decided and the whole matter is still before the Supreme Court of Ontario.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday this House debated the procedures governing the public accounts committee’s request to have Dr. James Cruise, Director of the Royal Ontario Museum, and me appear before them. I would like to assure this Legislature that I will be more than pleased to appear before the committee, as will Dr. Cruise, Mr. Sidney Hermant, chairman of the ROM board, and Dr. Douglas Wright, my deputy minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a copy of this?

Mr. S. Smith: The chairman of the committee doesn’t, but I do.

Mr. Speaker: The minister may proceed.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record and in fairness to Dr. Cruise, I should like to reiterate the point made by my deputy in last week’s public accounts debate. Dr. Cruise did not try to avoid the committee. He was advised by my officials that it would not be necessary for him to appear.

As members know, Royal Ontario Museum accounts are audited annually by Clarkson, Gordon and Company. Nevertheless, we welcome the provincial auditor’s examination of the museum’s financial organization. It will clarify the museum’s financial situation and its renovation and expansion program. Before we meet with the public accounts committee, let me make these points about ROM’s expansion and renovation program.

I am persuaded that the overall policy of the museum board governing that program is sound and prudent. The basic feature of the policy is that work should proceed in three distinct phases, and work on any one of these phases will not begin until all the money for that phase is either in hand or committed. This policy enabled ROM to start building the curatorial centre at an estimated cost of $25.6 million in April 1978. The cost of the curatorial centre has been covered by a $12.75 million grant from the provincial government, $6.7 million raised to date from voluntary donations and a matching $6.7 million from Wintario.

Construction of the curatorial centre is the largest of the three phases and will provide the ROM curatorial staff, for the first time, with their own offices and laboratory facilities. That means there will be more space for the viewing public and a quiet place for the curators to do their work.

No decision has been made on which of the next two phases -- that is, the construction of the terrace galleries or renovation of the main building -- will proceed first. Let me make this clear: It is government policy that there will be an absolute minimum of disruption to the viewing public.

Mr. Peterson: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As I suggested before, we don’t know when the next phase in the expansion and renovation program will begin.

Mr. S. Smith: They didn’t even tell you that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That depends to a large extent on federal help. For many months prior to the May 22 federal election, we negotiated with the then Secretary of State, John Roberts, about an early federal commitment. Contrary to some public reports, the federal government did not finally reject our request. The moment we know who Mr. Roberts’ successor is, we will resume our negotiations. I think we can be confident of receiving some help because of ROM’s national and international stature.

Finally, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, that there will be no layoffs at the museum for fiscal reasons.

Mr. Grande: Since when?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I hope that in the midst of the current debate about ROM, we do not lose sight of a central, crucial fact, ROM is already one of the great museums on this continent and in the world. The renovation and expansion program will only help it serve the people of Ontario, our fellow Canadians and the people of the world even better than it already has in its long and distinguished history.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege related to the Rolphton nuclear power station and statements made by the Minister of Energy in the House: On May 10, the minister advised the House in response to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition that that plant, which is a 20-megawatt nuclear demonstration plant, has been on a planned outage since March 26 of this year. Again, on May 24, he stated in the House, “Rolphton is currently shut down for routine maintenance.”

I draw the minister’s attention to the report in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 2, to the effect that the planned date for the shutdown was April 17, not March 26; and, secondly, the shutdown which did occur at the Rolphton plant had nothing to do with routine maintenance but was forced because of a radioactive leak within the reactor core which had been discovered at that time.

Would the minister please comment as to the extent and reasons why he may have misled the House, intentionally or unintentionally, and I assume unintentionally?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege. A newspaper reported something different from what was stated in the House by the minister, and nobody’s privileges have been abrogated. However, if the minister would like to set the record straight, it is his prerogative to do so, but in no way should it be construed as a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my intervention involves the minister’s statement and a statement by one of the officials of Hydro who apparently publicly admitted towards the end of last week that the official misled the public about the shutdown of Rolphton.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister wish to reply?

Mr. MacDonald: Before we have the minister reply to this I think there is one point you have made, Mr. Speaker, that is not strictly accurate; that is that it isn’t simply a case of misinterpretation or a difference in interpretation. Two officials of Hydro are involved. Larry Woodhead, the director of nuclear generation, referred to the leak in the boiler tubing and the plant manager referred to the reactor heating transport system that was allowing the escape of several kilograms of heavy water, et cetera.

In short, it is officials of Hydro who are now saying that the plant was shut down for reasons other than plant maintenance. The question of privilege is: How come the minister made a statement which was incomplete to the point of being inaccurate?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perhaps I can clarify the question. The responses that I gave in the House were on the basis of information supplied to me by Hydro at the time.

Mr. Warner: They misled you.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This morning I got a further, more comprehensive report from Hydro which indicated, as the member for Riverdale said, that it was originally intended to shut down for routine maintenance on April 17. However, on March 26 the station was shut down to carry out repairs to a fuel channel closure plug which was leaking. Rather than restart at the time, they decided to carry on with the rest of the maintenance.

I am told that maintenance would include turbine overhaul, inspection and repair of heat exchanger tube leaks, routine inspection of four pressure tubes, and routine safety system tests. I can only say to the honourable member that the information I had received up until this morning was what I had said. I think there may well have been a misunderstanding on what was housekeeping, what was routine maintenance and what was extraordinary maintenance.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to speak to Hydro about giving accurate information?

Mr. S. Smith: It’s like the routine maintenance for a car, starting by replacing any missing wheels.

Mr. Warner: Hydro isn’t under public control.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WINDSOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to question the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Metropolitan Hospital in Windsor is before the courts and he may not wish to comment on the merits or the outcome of the case, but I have another question.

Mr. Speaker: I see. You’re not going to address yourself to that particular question. I don’t want to intervene unduly, but I just want to caution members that the questioner and the minister should use their own discretion. It won’t be imposed by the chair with regard to whether or not something else is sub judice.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. May I once again address this question? Understanding that the matter is before the courts and the minister may not wish to comment on the outcome or the merits of the case, can the minister tell us whether it is accurate, as reported in the press, that the minister entered no case or argument before the judge who made his recent ruling?

Is it a fact that the minister did not submit a case in the matter of the Metropolitan Hospital and, if that is a fact, does the minister consider that this failure to submit a case shows the proper regard which a minister of the crown should have for the courts?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The application, if that’s the right term -- not being a lawyer, I’m not certain of that -- was filed a week ago last Friday, and we were informed thereof. It was set down to be heard in Windsor by Mr. Justice Trainor on Wednesday.

The impression left by some of the media accounts that the ministry ignored it or did not appear is totally inaccurate. We were in fact represented by counsel, that is, the crown was represented by counsel. I’m I told that counsel spoke for two-and-a-half hours on the matter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On which side?

Mr. Swart: And you still lost it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At that time we asked for an adjournment so there would be sufficient time to examine the affidavits filed by the applicant, if that is the proper term, and to prepare our own, which would themselves be cross-examined. We were represented, and I’m glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight.

Mr. Lawlor: It is shameful that you should be forced into the courts on a matter like that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We certainly wouldn’t ignore such an important matter.

Mr. Warner: It’s a good thing we’ve got a judicial system. You can’t punish people and get away with it.

Mr. S. Smith: This may be redundant. By way of supplementary, I take it what the minister is saying is that the ministry was represented. Did it in fact make a case and an argument as to why the beds should remain closed, as the ministry was suggesting? Can the minister give us some indication as to whether he has any fear that now, because his bed allocation and his previous regression analyses are all rather arbitrary, he is going to have to defend these in the case of a good many other hospitals in Ontario, as he goes about ham-handedly trying to close beds in the province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me say, first of all, that I got word of the application having been filed at something like four o’clock or 4:30 on the Friday afternoon, if memory serves me correctly. There certainly wasn’t time, between then and whenever it was heard on Wednesday, to get counsel to the city in question to examine affidavits -- to the best of my recollection, we didn’t even have them on the Friday -- to cross-examine on affidavit and to file our own.

When we were represented on Wednesday, it was to ask for an adjournment --

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, you asked for an adjournment.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- so that we could have sufficient time to examine the affidavit and to file our own.

Mr. Lawlor: You said your counsel spoke for two-and-a-half hours.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We asked for a two-week adjournment. I believe that’s what counsel asked for at the time. The main application -- and this has been a point that has been glossed over -- has not even been heard and has not been won or lost by either side. That is the point of the adjournment. It will be heard within the next month.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, and respecting the sub judice concern, I want to ask the minister whether it is true, as reported in the Windsor Star, that the ministry received a report from the ministry consultant, Mr. Chet Singh, which recommended that Metropolitan Hospital be allowed to reopen the 25 beds.

Second, did the minister receive an urgent telegram from the Metropolitan Hospital itself urging him to reopen the 25 beds? If he did receive both of these documents, when did he receive them and, most important, why did he fail to respond to those documents? Why did he remain silent, particularly with respect to any communications to the Metropolitan Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There are many aspects of the Windsor situation, particularly with respect to Windsor Met, that I would love to debate today. However, I think it best that all of the information in regard to this come out in the proper way, in the affidavits and the cross-examination of the affidavits.

Mr. Swart: Certainly not through the minister.

Mr. Warner: They have to fight you in court to get decent health care.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t intend to say anything that would in any way prejudice the outcome when the application is heard within the month.

Mr. Mancini: I have a supplementary to the Minister of Health. Does it not concern the Minister of Health that the relationship between Metropolitan Hospital and his ministry is now in a complete shambles? And does it not concern the minister that the hospital feels it has to take him and his ministry to court so that the people of Windsor can get adequate health care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I certainly don’t consider the relationship to be in a shambles.

Mrs. Campbell: How would you describe it?

Mr. Breaugh: How would you describe it?

Mr. Warner: A wreck on wheels.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Otherwise, I don’t know why I would have approved an expansion of the cancer clinic there a few months ago, if it were in a shambles.

Mr. Breaugh: What are your words to describe it?

Mr. Wildman: You are Delilah to the ministry’s Samson.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With regard to the particular application, there are many aspects of it and many things that have been written and said the last few days on which I would dearly love to join in debate. But I don’t intend to prejudice the outcome of this application.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister if he remembers that on March 13, 15, 29 and April 5, 9, 19 and 23 I raised the problems of the Metropolitan Hospital in this Legislature during question period. He was aware of the problems, why didn’t he respond? Why did he neglect this situation? Does he not feel his neglect should result in his resignation as Minister of Health?

Mr. Warner: The sooner the better.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, again I think once we have the opportunity to file our affidavit in a proper court of law and not in a kangaroo court the member would operate --

Mr. Breaugh: Would you call this House a kangaroo court?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- then all of the facts, some of which the member may like or which he won’t like, will be public knowledge.

Mr. Warner: The minister is destroying the system.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I’m not.

Mr. S. Smith: If I can have the attention of the minister, can I ask a final supplementary? Could the minister clarify for the benefit of this House and the people of Ontario that he is saying he had enough evidence to force the closure of 25 beds of that hospital, and any other hospital beds throughout the province, but he couldn’t raise a word in his own defence without having an additional two weeks when challenged to produce some of that evidence in a court of law? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I’m saying is, clearly, counsel for the hospital had obviously been working on their application for some time. I think the member would acknowledge that. In that time, it had prepared certain affidavits.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister had the policy for some time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, only proper that we ask for a few weeks within which to provide time to cross-examine the people who gave those affidavits, to file our own affidavit and, of course, to provide the opportunity for those people who provide those depositions --

Mr. Warner: It should be a Frank Miller restraints speech.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- be cross-examined so any final judgement would be based on all the relevant facts. That only seems reasonable.

SALES TAX ON ENTERTAINMENT

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to question the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker, regarding his statement today on the matter of retail sales tax exemptions with regard to Canadian professional talent.

I’m pleased to note the minister recognizes the need to provide some relief. May I ask whether the provisions the minister mentioned on page three of his statement will ensure the situation will be the same as it was before the new law was passed with regard to professional Canadian talent? The minister is going to be inundated with applications. Can he assure the Canadian talent industry the applications will be dealt with essentially exactly as they were before the law was changed? If not, would he not simply change the law back to what it was in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the Leader of the Opposition a blanket assurance that I’m going to change the law back to the way it was before, because they were a very confusing, mixed-up set of regulations, with which it was very difficult to deal. It was unfair to some of the people who were not able to take advantage of it simply because of the fact they weren’t aware of all the existing regulations. I’m not prepared to make a commitment that we would go back to where we were. I am prepared to make the commitment to examine each application on its own merit.

You have to remember that in the statement I also said the price of admission had been raised from $3 to $3.50, which is going to make a considerable difference. Except in certain circumstances, the price of admission for most Canadian talent in various theatres is less than $3.50, so the rule doesn’t even apply. It’s quite true amongst the smaller theatres. Go around the province. Get around out there and see what is going on. I’m not suggesting Hamilton Place or the O’Keefe Centre would fall into that category, but I am saying most of the smaller theatres do fall into that category. There is going to be larger numbers of exemptions now than there ever has been. We are prepared to look at any of the other places where there could be some difficulties, certainly.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister fail to understand that the issue does not have to do with the small amateur theatres or those groups already getting public funds, but has to do with professional Canadian talent? At the moment, when a promoter is seeking to book an act or a musical group or whatever, there is an incentive for the promoter to book a Canadian group rather than an American one because he can evade the tax which is otherwise applicable. He used to apply, and if he could satisfy the minister that it was Canadian he would get the exemption.

Does the minister not recognize he has now introduced an uncertainty inasmuch as those who do the bookings will have to pour into his office seeking this relief? Why not simply assure them the situation will be unchanged for professional Canadian talent? If he can’t give that assurance, why not bring back that provision from the previous law and clarify the matter that way?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I think the Leader of the Opposition perhaps doesn’t realize this tax is a consumer tax. It isn’t the Canadian talent who are paying it; it isn’t the people who operate the theatres who pay it. It’s the consumer. If the price of admission is $5, $8 or $10, surely the people who can afford to pay $8 to go to a performance can also afford to pay the tax. Who are we giving the break to?

Mr. S. Smith: To Canadian talent.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Are we giving it to Canadian talent or are we giving it to the owner of the theatre, who may not even pass it on? There is a little more to this situation than meets the eye at first glance. We have worked with this for quite some time and we are trying to be as fair as we can be.

It must also be pointed out at this time that Canadian performers are being used the same way as any other performer. We’re not taking anything away. We’re not saying: “It’s going to affect you in a lesser manner.”

Mrs. Campbell: No, it’s gone too far already.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I don’t understand. If Canadian performers were getting the advantage of the 10 per cent, that’s one thing, but they are not getting that advantage.

Mr. Eakins: “We treat you royally.”

Mrs. Campbell: “Buy Canadian.”

Mr. S. Smith: I’m alarmed, though.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You don’t understand it.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister assure us that those amateur theatre groups and other artistic organizations, which, through programs designed largely by the Ontario Arts Council and other programs of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, occasionally hire a professional director or a professional stage manager or designer to assist them with their productions and to upgrade their own talent, will continue to be exempt, as they are under the basic guidelines he has outlined here?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: By all means. The whole thrust of this change in legislation was to provide exactly that type of thing. In other words, any group that is a non-profit organization -- athletic associations and so on -- approved by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation would not be taxable.

Mr. Foulds: Even if they had one who was a professional?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: That is included in the act. Certainly we have no intention of changing it.

Mr. S. Smith: Final supplementary: I’m alarmed that the minister appears not to understand the implications of what he is doing. Does the minister recognize that, at the moment, if he gives the exemption to Canadian talent, there is then an incentive to book a Canadian act? One can either charge the same ticket prices as for an American act and make more profit or pass on the difference, in whole or in part, to the audience and hope to attract a larger audience and make more profit.

Either way it is a stimulus to the booking agent to hire the Canadian act and book it into the hall rather than the American one, under similar circumstances. Does the minister realize that is an incentive? Why is he taking that incentive away?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Has the member’s agent had difficulty booking him lately?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have already indicated we will examine each one of these. Our intention is not to take that incentive away. I understand what the member is saying. I have already said in my statement that we will examine each one of these and we will see that fairness comes into play. I don’t know what more I can do for the member.

Mr. S. Smith: You are creating confusion; put it back the way it was.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: You are not aware of the confusion that existed out there before we brought this in.

WINDSOR METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL

Mr. McClellan: I would like, if I may, to go back to the Minister of Health with respect to Windsor Metropolitan Hospital. I want to ask the minister, notwithstanding his statement today that Mr. Justice Trainor agreed to his request for an adjournment, is it not a fact that Mr. Justice Trainor asked himself the question, and I quote him from the Windsor Star, which I assume is a quote from his report: “I have asked myself if it has been determined that an emergency endangering the lives of patients in fact exists and that in fact he ruled that on the basis of the evidence before him such an emergency did exist.”

I ask the minister, is that not a fact, and if it is, will the minister admit that the bed allocation ratio is an arbitrary one which doesn’t conform to the real needs of many hospitals and he ought, as a course of sanity, to re-evaluate the adverse effects of the cutback program, restore those 25 beds and obviate the necessity for further litigation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, the question of the general policy of allocation figures and formulae and so forth have been under discussion and will continue to be so in the social development committee, of which the honourable member is himself a member.

I have made certain arguments there and I can only repeat them today, but with regard to the wording, we do not have the judgement or decision from Friday. I understand it will be in the hands of the crown law officer some time this afternoon and, once we have had an opportunity to review it, then we can conduct ourselves accordingly.

Mr. McClellan: May I ask, by way of supplementary, whether the minister is aware that the evidence before Justice Trainor was not the only evidence to suggest he should re-examine his bed allocation ratios? I want to ask him whether he has seen the report of the coroner’s jury into the death of Katarina Frydryk who died in St. Joseph’s Hospital, according to the coroner’s verdict, as a result of accidental strangulation due to compression of the throat by a safety vest. The accident occurred in the emergency department of St. Joseph’s Hospital while the patient waited on a stretcher to be admitted as an inpatient.

One of the recommendations of that coroner’s jury is that the Ministry of Health should re-examine the bed situation. How much evidence is he going to have to receive, and how many tragedies are going to have to occur before the minister acts responsibly as Minister of Health in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, no tragedy will knowingly be allowed to occur anywhere in the province. The honourable member knows that. The honourable member knows, too, that we would respond and will be responding to the recommendations of a coroner’s jury. He knows that the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the University Teaching Hospital Association, two hospital planning bodies, are examining the bed situation in Metropolitan Toronto. As in many communities in regard to the situation around here, the matter is in the hands of local planning bodies, looking to come up with advice to us as to what is most appropriate for the future needs of the province or of the particular community.

I really don’t intend to comment further on whatever was before the justice inasmuch as I do not intend in any way, as I said earlier, to prejudice the outcome of that application.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that the bed allocation at present at Windsor Metropolitan Hospital is below the limit he suggested? It is down to 3.49 and if they follow his suggestion it will be down to 3.03. Even the minister’s officials suggested to him last day that the 25 beds remain open. Does the minister intend to follow that suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will only answer in this way: Of course, bed allocations are based on hospital centres and beyond that I can add no more at this time.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. McClellan: A question for the Minister of Education: Pursuant to her statement in the House of May 15, when she told us with respect to heritage languages that “the province is assuming the full cost of the heritage languages program,” I want to ask the minister whether at the time of her statement she was aware that there was a reduction in existing grants to the Metropolitan Separate School Board, whether she acknowledges she had meetings with representatives of the separate school board in which they told her that the program cost $28 for a class of 25 as opposed to her offer this year of $21 per class of 25, and finally, whether she acknowledges that the Metropolitan Toronto School Board has advised her that their real cost was $23 per class of 25? If all of that is true and accurate, how can she tell the House that she is providing total funding when she knows at the time of her announcement that she wasn’t providing total funding for the heritage languages program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there was a careful examination of the statements which were provided by all of the boards involved in the heritage languages program. There was a very careful examination of the statements provided by the Metropolitan Separate School Board and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. There were certain features included within those two statements which were not in fact directly related specifically to the heritage languages program which were not included in other statements.

There was discussion of this. Both of the boards understood that we were funding the heritage languages program per se and that is the reason that the decision was taken that the province would indeed cover the entire cost of providing the program. On average, this will more than supply the cost for many of the boards providing the program.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, I still don’t understand what the minister is saying. Let me ask her bluntly, is she telling us that the Metropolitan Separate School Board and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board submitted information to her which she in her infinite wisdom deemed to be inaccurate? If so, will she give us the specifics of the figures which she disputes with the MSSB and the MTSB with respect to their real costs of the heritage languages program?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not say that they submitted inaccurate information. They submitted information which had in addition to the actual specific cost of providing the heritage languages program, other costs which could be construed as a part of the school program in ordinary circumstances, which was perhaps not an appropriate inclusion in the costing of the heritage languages program, which was what had been requested.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given that some boards offer the program during the school day and some offer it after school or on Saturday mornings, does the minister have two different sets of cost figures which take into consideration that two different kinds of boards operate in two different ways?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are aware of varieties of methods of providing the course and are aware that indeed as a result of the inclusion within the so-called school day by the Metropolitan Separate School Board that there were certain modifications which they considered to be necessary. There was much discussion of this with representatives of the Metropolitan Separate School Board. The decision was taken that indeed it was reasonable to provide the cost, on average, of the delivery of the heritage language program --

Mr. McClellan: Yes, your version of the cost, not the real cost.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- in Ontario on the basis of the real costs of the program as defined by almost all of the boards which submitted their reports.

Mr. Grande: Supplementary: Could the minister give us any information that she may have as to whether such boards as Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, Kapuskasing and others are going to receive one red cent more for their heritage languages program as a result of her May 15 memo?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I don’t have those figures with me at the moment. It is my understanding that in most instances most of the boards will indeed receive more in support of the heritage languages program, because instead of being provided at the rate of grant of the board it is being provided at the level of 100 per cent of the cost of the program.

Mr. Grande: Could the minister get that information for us?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

[2:45]

LAND SPECULATION TAX

Mr. Epp: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. I wonder if the Minister of Revenue is aware his officials are not reducing proportionately the amount of speculation tax demanded when a citizen of this province takes back a mortgage at the time of sale of a piece of property, and that when discharging that mortgage at a discount a year or so later he is expected to pay the full amount of speculation tax on the sale?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Without referring in depth to the legislation on this matter, it’s my understanding -- and I am sure this is what the member is referring to -- if a mortgage has been taken and then the purchaser defaults and it goes back to the original owner, of course he is subject to speculation tax -- if there’s a profit, that is.

Mr. Epp: The problem is not that he’s subject to speculation tax; the problem is that he’s subject to the total speculation tax. In other words, the ministry is demanding money from citizens of this province in the form of speculation tax --

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree.

Mr. Epp: -- on the amount far beyond what the actual person received in payment for the sale of that property. Does the minister not agree this is a dishonest way to collect speculation tax from citizens of this province, particularly when the speculation tax has already been rescinded and also when many large corporations in this province have been exempt from paying speculation tax?

Mr. Roy: Does the minister understand the question?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: No, I really don’t.

Mrs. Campbell: No, he doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would ask the member to provide me with the details on the complaint he has and I will have it looked into. At this point, I am really not in a position to say whether or not I disagree. I would like to have a lot more detail than he has given me.

PARK LAND ROAD PLAN

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware of the Waterloo regional transportation plan which has an east-west arterial road running through land which was donated to the province to be used strictly for the purposes of providing park and recreational facilities for the citizens of that area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary: Given that the land was accepted by the province for park purposes by order in council dated December 20, 1967, and given that there are letters on file from both former Premier Robarts and Premier Davis, and given that a much-honoured member of this House, former Speaker Allan Reuter, has said that “for the province to allow the use of this land as part of a highway is totally erroneous in my opinion,” can the minister assure us the commitment to the donor made by this government will be upheld?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get some legal advice on that matter. As I am sure the honourable member --

Mr. Warner: You are going to spend half your life in court

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the details of this gift by Mr. Percy Hilborn who I think was not only one of our area’s finest and most public-spirited citizens but I might add also happened to be a relative of mine.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since I am particularly concerned that this action, if it proceeds, will be a disgraceful --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- abuse to his memory, will the minister undertake to interview all of the interested parties in this matter before any decision is made by cabinet so that any precedent established will be done with the full knowledge of its future effects on other such possible philanthropic gifts?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know of any application that is before cabinet for a decision at this time, although one may come forward. I am quite familiar with this matter and the feelings of the family of the donor. I believe it is the daughter of the gentleman who is a constituent and close friend of ours in Oakville.

As I recall the situation, this parcel of land was accepted by the province and was ultimately turned over to the conservation authority. I don’t know at this time whether the covenants were on the land when it came to the province or when it was turned over to the conservation authority. I know there is a very decided opinion within the community as to whether this particular east-west artery should be built. That, I think, is a decision that has to be made by the transportation planners and the elected officials of the region of Waterloo and the city of Cambridge.

Mr. M. Davidson: Final supplementary: Will the minister, when he is reviewing the situation he has before him, take into consideration a letter to Dr. George Priddle, who is chairman of the Provincial Parks Council, which ends by saying, “Authority representatives” -- meaning the conservation authority -- “have also indicated that under these circumstances there was no possibility that the authority could release willingly any of the property for purposes of constructing a highway bypass”? That letter was signed by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Hon. Mr. Snow: Again, I am not aware of that particular letter. We will look into that matter, as well.

HOSPITAL BOARDS

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of Health: Does the minister believe it is appropriate that membership on the board of governors of a publicly funded hospital should be determined solely by a nominating committee, especially when the existing board of governors names the majority of members to that nominating committee? Would the minister not agree that in fact gives the existing board of governors literally total control over all future boards of governors? Is such a practice permissible in this province.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the bylaws passed by the board and/or approved by the membership of the hospital association set out a particular structure, and they are all different, then that is what would be followed. I don’t know whether this is a hypothetical example or if it is one that is incorporated in the bylaws of a hospital that have been approved in one of those two manners, but it would have to be done according to the bylaws.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: To be specific, is it not true the St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital has, in fact, passed such a bylaw and that bylaw has been forwarded to the minister for approval? Can the minister tell us whether or not he has supported or intends to support such a bylaw?

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t that appear to you to be somewhat undemocratic?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I believe they have passed some bylaws -- and I am not sure whether it includes that -- which would have gone to the institutional division, who would then check to see whether they are, in fact, in conformity with the Public Hospitals Act. As long as they are not in conflict with the Public Hospitals Act, inasmuch as we do believe in local autonomy, they would be sent back as being approved.

Mr. Sweeney: Final supplementary: Would the minister not agree that if in fact such a procedure is put into effect, then any semblance whatsoever of democracy, or the possibility of dissenting voices becoming members of that board of governors, is eliminated?

Mr. Warner: The people are going to have to take you to court again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would want to think about the example, but I am sure the hospital board, representing as they do, the community, would not pass or propose any bylaws that were not in the interest of the hospital and the community. As I say, if they have submitted bylaws and if they have been returned to them as approved, they wouldn’t come through me, they would go through staff. It would be on the basis that they had been checked against the Public Hospitals Act and found to be in no way in contravention of the act.

USE OF MATACIL

Mr. Foulds: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment a question. Has the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, consulted with him, and has he justified to him the use of aerial spraying of 40,000 to 45,000 acres for spruce budworm in the Geraldton and Kirkland Lake districts with Matacil when there is increasing evidence from Maine, New Brunswick and Newfoundland that: (a) the spraying simply produces a bigger and better super spruce budworm and prolongs the epidemic; (b) the side toxic effects on other life forms, such as insects, animals and humans, are potentially hazardous, and (c) only about 50 per cent of the pesticide reaches its target because of wind and other meteorological conditions?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, my colleague has not discussed that with me, but I will be sure to send him a copy of Hansard and he will reply.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not consider this a very serious matter and bring it directly to his colleague’s attention in that it is the so-called non-active ingredients of the mix, such as nonylphenol, the solvent, and diesel oil, the emulsifier, which are suspected of contributing to the high number of cases of Reyes syndrome affecting children in New Brunswick and Quebec, rather than the active ingredient? Is he aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency withdrew the licence for Matacil in 1970?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would be very surprised if our Pesticides Advisory Committee has not considered the chemicals involved here. I will certainly consult with them, get their advice, as requested by the member, and then discuss the issue with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Will the minister assure the House that the use of those pesticides does not have any effect on an individual, causing Reyes syndrome?

Mr. Foulds: That’s just what I asked.

Mr. Speaker: That question was already asked.

PHOTO ON DRIVER’S LICENCE

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Since the House passed enabling legislation more than a year ago for photographs on drivers’ licences, will the minister report at what stage the implementation of that policy is? Is he contemplating using a procedure which will provide a second photograph or a negative for a number of photographs which would then he provided for Ontario Provincial Police or other law enforcement files? Is the minister aware of the concern among people interested in civil liberties that such would be and may be regarded as an intrusion similar to the filing of fingerprints of those persons not accused or convicted of crimes?

Hon. Mr. Snow: To take the second part of the question first, no decision has definitely been made yet as to which process will be used with respect to the photographs whether it will be the instant photograph without a negative system or whether it would be the wet process where a negative would be on file. If that were the system to be used, I would be concerned, as the honourable member is, as to the security of that particular negative. That is certainly something I would want to look into.

To answer the first question, I have not yet got a definite date for the implementation of the photo on the driver’s licence. Although I set it as a relatively high priority among a number within the ministry in our budgetary allocations this current fiscal year, we were not able to assign the necessary funds to this new initiative at the expense of ongoing programs within that division of the ministry. As we were not able to get the additional funding for the program, it has been delayed. But we are looking at it as one of our new initiatives in our budgetary planning for next year.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister must be aware that the recommendation from the select committee on highway safety was simply to cut down the number of people using drivers’ licenses improperly, that is, a licence borrowed from somebody else while their own was suspended, and since the minister would then agree that it is for identification purposes and not law enforcement purposes otherwise, would he not agree that the policy for implementation should be for a procedure that provides a picture on the licence and no other? Would he not also agree that the $60 fee we pay for the licence of a vehicle might provide at least some of the money necessary for the implementation of this program?

Mr. Ruston: That should be enough.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t see any relationship whatsoever with the $60 fee. We are not photographing one’s automobile and putting the picture on the registration.

Mr. Nixon: There is a relationship.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s automobile would look better than him on the photo.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That might be possible. As I am sure the honourable member knows, all revenue raised through those processes goes to my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck). Getting it back from them is not very easy.

Mr. Nixon: You’re like the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman). You have no punch.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Under any circumstances, I assure the member that the concerns he has expressed here have been ones we have been discussing. I think the process has been such that until we are ready to proceed with the program there is no need to make that final decision.

[3:00]

GLUTEN-FREE FOOD

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that the price of gluten-free food used by children and others who suffer from the coeliac disease, has doubled in the last two months? Does he know this has been caused by a decision of the women’s auxiliary at the Hospital for Sick Children no longer to do the retailing, handling and shipping, a service they were providing on a voluntary basis and which the Hospital for Sick Children has refused to continue?

What steps is the ministry taking to see that these kinds of food, which are about the equivalent of medicine, are available at something other than an exclusive price which many sufferers cannot afford?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will ask for a report from the president of the Hospital for Sick Children as to exactly what they are doing about that and will let the member know.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Might I inform the minister of the gravity of this situation when a nine-ounce loaf of bread has gone from $2.20 to $4.80? Would the minister fail to understand that the increase on these foods will cost people like the Ivan Weasners in Welland, who have three-year-old coeliac twins, something like $60 to $100 a month extra? Will he, through his ministry, provide sufficient funding to the Hospital for Sick Children so that they can continue the program at cost?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will look into the matter. I will also investigate how many of those things can be made in the home.

HOME CLOSURE

Mr. Blundy: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to refer the minister to the impending closure of the home in Feversham and to ask him, particularly, if he is aware of the confusion that is going on in that area in the families of the patients who are being transferred from one home to the other, with no regard, really, for any kind of programming that might assist the people from the Feversham home?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Just for clarification, I wonder if the member is referring to a closing of a nursing home. Is that what he is referring to?

Mr. Blundy: It is a home for retarded children and adults. I would think the minister would be aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe the facility the member is referring to is, in fact, a nursing home in which there are some mentally retarded residents who are being transferred. If that is the place he is referring to, and I believe it to be so, then I am aware of it. Our staff are working with the local association in that community in an effort to facilitate the relocation of those residents who are moving.

The reason I am a little less than clear on it is because of the reference only to the name of the facility. I am not sure I am thinking of the correct one, or whether the member is. I believe it is a nursing home.

Mr. McClellan: Perhaps neither of you is.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s possible.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: It may be a nursing home, but it does have a number of retarded people, both young and old. I would ask the minister what he is doing to alleviate the situation there, where the people are perceiving it to be as if these patients were pawns in an interministerial chess game? There is great confusion among the relatives of these people.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have just received some clarification. It is, in fact, a home for special care which would be at the present rime under the Ministry of Health. We are working with those families in an effort to find appropriate relocation for them in that community, and working with the local association for the mentally retarded.

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Does the minister recall that he told the House on December 8, 1978, he would bring in a plan to develop the Canadian forestry and pulp and paper machinery industry in conjunction with his pulp and paper industry incentive plan, and that he would put that plan before the House this spring? It is now spring and I would like to ask the minister when he will be sharing his plan with us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to read exactly what I said at that time. I’m not sure that’s a direct quote in that we would have presented a formal plan as such. If that was the impression I left then I should take this opportunity to correct it.

Mr. McClellan: What did you mean?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will say exactly what I meant. I meant any action the government takes in the pulp and paper industry will be directly tied to the machinery part of that industry. To that end the discussions that have been carried on with very many pulp and paper firms with regard to the Employment Development Fund have in each case included discussions with regard to sourcing of machinery in Canada. As we get a better feel for the amount and the type of machinery involved, then we will be able to go on to a second step. This would be to meet with the various companies that might be able to supply that machinery and encourage them to respond to what will then be an apparent market for that machinery.

Mr. Wildman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister commented last December 8: “ ... seeing if we can’t put together enough people in industry to respond to what will obviously be a demand for that product and arrange for it to be made somewhere in Canada.” Then further: “We would expect it to be before this House next spring. Or sooner.”

The trade deficit on pulp and paper machinery increased in 1978 over 1977, leaving us with a trade deficit of $83.4 million, and we are importing close to 50 per cent of our needs for this machinery. Doesn’t the minister consider it worth pursuing this machinery inventory plan with all the vigour he can muster rather than just discussions, especially as it could be the basis for developing a sound high-technology secondary manufacturing industry in the north?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now that I’ve had a chance to read a copy of my remarks on December 8, I know the member will agree that notwithstanding the way he posed the question today, I did not say I would be bringing forward a plan this spring to put together a machinery operation in the north. What I did say I will read from page 5837 on December 8, 1978. It was a response identical to the response I gave two minutes ago -- that there’s no point talking about pretending that an industry can grow up for the production of pulp and paper machinery, in the north or anywhere else, until we know the extent and size of the market there may be for that machinery.

When one is talking about very expensive and complex machinery, an industry can’t grow up overnight relying upon the sales of one or two pieces of machinery that a particular firm might be able to build and supply. They are of course going to have to compete with long-established industry throughout the world which have the capability to build and sell those machines. I think it’s only reasonable to look at that part of the market which may be in Canada and which we may have some influence over before we spend millions of dollars setting up an industry to respond to what may be a very limited and uneconomic market.

I am sure the member would agree with me that’s the sensible way to approach this problem.

Mr. S. Smith: All you do is give away money.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, would the minster not agree that if he and the federal government are embarked on giving the pulp and paper industry millions and millions of dollars to upgrade their machinery or put new machines in, there should be some kind of commitment on their part to involve themselves with the government and spend it in Canada and buy equipment here, even if the government has to provide some incentive to some company to make that machinery in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I do agree wholeheartedly. In fact, in our early discussions -- some of them are quite far down the road -- it appears that in one of the major early pulp and paper propositions that will likely be approved by the board, I think the figure -- I stand to be corrected -- when I last inquired was that about 80 per cent of the machinery could and would be sourced in Canada, in accordance with a commitment they would give to us. That is, in fact, a commitment we seek to extract.

When a company says to us that is the maximum it can purchase in Canada, what we do is take the entire list of machinery it will be purchasing. We then go out and scour the market in Canada among potential suppliers and, if we locate someone who can make that particular machinery, we insist that as part of our grant it undertake to purchase that machinery as well.

The second part of the question was, would we give some money to some other firms if they needed that incentive to build those machines to supply that?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not exactly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I want my friend to have asked that.

I can safely say the answer to that question is yes -- if the member had asked it in that way.

RADIATION IN FOOD

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It relates more to his ministerial responsibility for food.

Has his ministry or any other ministry of the government of which he is aware, any study of food which might have been imported from the area of Three Mile Island, in the state of Pennsylvania, to evaluate the effect of the escape of radiation on the food in the area?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have not directly, ourselves; although we would co-operate with the government of Canada, which is responsible for all imported produce. I will be glad to check with them and get back to the member.

Mr. Bradley: Even if there is not a considerable amount of food imported -- indeed, perhaps there is not any food imported from that specific area; I understand it’s largely dairy products, which would not be imported -- would the minister feel that the information that could be derived from American authorities would prove to be useful to his ministry and the government in the light of the fact that, with our nuclear industry here, there is always the possibility we could have a similar accident, and we would have ahead of time the information that would be useful to the people of Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: We do have ongoing discussions on all sorts of research and testing, not only at the provincial level and the federal level but also with our US counterpart on research; this sort of thing would be discussed at those conferences, which they have once a year.

MINISTRY AMALGAMATION

Ms. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that her government has decided to stall the passage of Bill 19 -- the bill providing for the amalgamation of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education -- by refusing to establish a select committee or standing committee on education that has the power to report recommendations to this Legislature, and in view of the fact that all the briefs presented so far have called upon the government to establish such a committee on education, could the minister give us the benefit of her opinion as to whether the amalgamation -- which I understand is almost complete right now -- is legal, given the fact that there has not been legislative approval for that amalgamation?

Secondly, could the minister explain why it is that she and her government are so afraid of public input on educational concerns across this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for this area and a representative of the government, I can assure the honourable member that we have had a great deal of public input. I am delighted that the public input is being shared with the members of the opposition at this point. However, I have not as yet made any statement to the committee because, unfortunately, I have not been able to attend the committee hearings at a time when I would be able to tell them what the decision was regarding Bill 19.

It would not be entirely correct to suggest that the government is holding up passage of Bill 19. I would suggest that the chairman and the members of the standing committee on justice are those who have made the decision that they will go through an exercise which will delay the implementation of the bill.

Mr. Cooke: It’s the only way we can get public input.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At the present time, the ministry is functioning in a new and better-organized way. But I would remind the honourable members that both the deputy minister and the minister have responsibility for both portfolios, and we are continuing to function in that way. It is also my understanding -- and I hope the honourable member will correct me if I am wrong -- that that bill was passed in principle by this House with no recorded vote at all. Indeed every one in the House at the time was supportive of the integration bill. The interesting exercise we’re going through is going to be beneficial to the members.

[3:15]

Ms. Cooke: They were in support of the bill but not of the minister.

Ms. Grande: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Ms. Speaker: Do you have a brief supplementary? The member’s original was a five- part question. If he has a brief supplementary, I’ll hear it.

Ms. Grande: I have a brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are the minister and the Ministry of Education afraid her educational priorities are so totally wrong that she would not want the people of this province to bring reports to a committee of this Legislature on education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no such fear.

FOREIGN PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Apparently, last week he revealed to the news media the results of his investigation into the foreign ownership of agricultural land in Huron-Kent and parts of Bruce county. He apparently indicated it was so minimal he was dismissing it as a dead issue. Perhaps he could enlighten this Legislature about his sources of information, on his survey. Why does this information not correspond to the many reports my colleagues and I are getting of the large tracts of land being purchased by foreign investors?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in fairness the figures I gave last week were, except for Huron township and Bruce county, given to the member in the estimates. We had those figures and we wanted to see ‘he had them in the estimates.

We did a 1976 report on Kent county and we updated that Kent county report to 1978. That was up until three weeks ago. We did a report on Huron county in 1976 and compared it to Huron county in 1978 and there has been a slight increase in there. We also did Huron township in Bruce county. We haven’t gone back prior to 1976 as far as figures are concerned but from 1976 to 1978 the increase in the member’s county was some 1,500 acres. I wouldn’t want to guess at the figures, but it’s less than half of one per cent of all the land in Huron county.

How did we get these figures? We first went to the computerized farm tax reduction rolls and if anyone had a resident address outside Ontario, a non-resident address, we considered that foreign ownership. In many cases that could be Canadian-owned. It could be, for instance, someone who was living in Florida but still owned a farm back here, or was living in England and had a farm back here. They could still be Canadian-owned, but we accepted that as foreign-owned.

Second, we went to the registry office and checked with the registrar of the various registry offices in Huron county and in Kent county to get transfers. We also looked up numbered companies. In Huron county, there are a lot of numbered companies owned by fathers and sons. We took the numbered companies and checked them out. As I said the other day, all the numbered companies had Canadian directors except one from Alberta and one from Germany.

We did a random sample of about 10 per cent of all of Huron county of all registered partnerships. These were father and son partnerships and so forth. We didn’t find any that were owned directly by non-resident people. That’s not to say there are none.

I know what the member is coming to, but those were our sources of information. We also used the agricultural representatives in our particular areas.

I do know there has been foreign ownership of land in some areas and that is one of the reasons for the land transfer tax which makes it 20 per cent and which, I think, has had a great deal of bearing on the ownership of land by foreign buyers.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I always understood that if you have a point to make, you get up in this Legislature and make a point.

Mr. Speaker: A point of what?

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a point.

Mr. Speaker: We’re not accepting points of view today, not at this point anyway. If the member feels it’s a point of order or a point of privilege, I’ll hear it.

Mr. Grande: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m dissatisfied with the answer the Minister of Education gave regarding the heritage language program and I wish to debate it at the proper time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows he has to give reasons for his disenchantment in writing.

PETITION

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from 2,000 people, and I quote:

“Dear Miss Stephenson:

“We are shocked and dismayed by your recent proposal to reduce funding of the heritage languages program. This program was instituted after long years of struggle on the part of several community groups and has become a valid and important part of our children’s education.

“Therefore, we most vigorously protest the proposed budget cuts for this program and strongly urge you to reconsider and rescind them.”

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Just because they’re not going to make a million dollars out of it, they call it a budget cut.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s just loss of profit.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Loss of profit, that’s all.

MOTION

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to travel to Dryden on Wednesday, June 6, 1979, to visit the facilities of the Reed paper company and that the provisions of section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HALTON MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved first reading of Bill 119, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Halton.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this bill dissolves the five existing commissions in the region of Halton and establishes new hydro-electric commissions for the municipalities of Burlington, Halton Hills, Milton and Oakville. The bill is based on the principles of the Hogg committee as tabled in the Legislature in February 1975 and is substantially similar to previous restructuring acts in Waterloo, Peel, York and Niagara regions and Oxford county.

No later than January 1, 1980, all customers within each of the four municipalities will be supplied by the new commissions. There is a provision, however, for earlier implementation as a result of agreement between a new commission and Ontario Hydro.

This legislation has been reviewed by Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy in consultation with members of the local study team, the Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario and the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. Discussions have also been held with the MPPs representing ridings in that region. On behalf of the government, I wish to express appreciation to the Halton local study team for its work.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 194 and 195 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Although notice hasn’t been served previously, I wonder if the House would agree that we might call the three private bills that appear on the order paper; that is, orders 42, 43 and 44. If there are no objections, I will proceed to call them.

Perhaps while I’m on my feet I will remind members that the House is in session this evening and tonight we are taking into consideration orders 35 and 36.

If there is no objection, could we proceed with the private bills?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have agreement?

Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE ACT

Mr. Ruston, on behalf of Mr. Kerrio, moved second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

DELILA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ACT, 1979

Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of Mr. Jones, moved second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Delila Construction Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to en motion.

BOROUGH OF EAST YORK ACT, 1979

Mr. J. Johnson moved second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to continue with the comments I wish to make leading into discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On Friday last, I emphasized to the minister the great responsibility and the great opportunity he and his government have, in conjunction with the federal government, to promote a joint economic strategy for this nation and for this province. If they took the right measures they could go a long way to alleviate the serious unemployment situation, provide a program of import replacement, introduce new environmental measures and so on.

I also pointed out that this government, both on its own and through its relationships with the municipalities and the federal government, had brought about a widening of the gap between the poor and the affluent in this province and they should take the necessary steps to reverse that trend so that when we are in a period of rather hard times the brunt of that should not be borne by those in the lower income but there should be some greater equality in our society.

I agree generally with the minister’s comments with regard to the constitution and our relationship with our sister province of Quebec, but I warn him about getting trapped in terminology such as “sovereignty association,” which may not have an exact meaning. I guess the convention of the PQ over the past weekend emphasizes that danger. Sovereignty association has a different meaning now than it had just a few short days ago. I suggest it can change perhaps half a dozen times in interpretation between now and the time the actual vote takes place. All I am saying to the minister, really, is let’s make it clear that we’ll never be party to negotiating any breakup of this nation, but I think we should stay away from hard stands on elusive terminology.

[3:30]

When the debate concluded on Friday, I was talking about the need for a legislated revenue-sharing act dealing with the sharing of revenues between the province and the municipalities. I suggested it’s desirable to provide adequate revenue for the municipalities, and I pointed out that the share of their expenditures they are having to raise from property taxation has increased rather substantially over the last five years. We should have the revenue-sharing legislation to assure municipalities that that kind of decrease is not going to take place, and in addition to that to provide some orderly planning for the future.

All I can say today is that there is another reason it’s desperately needed in this province. They have legislated revenue-sharing in BC and in Saskatchewan. The reason we need it here is to re-establish the credibility of this government with the municipalities of this province. The minister’s predecessor -- and I’m not blaming the present minister for it, though he does represent that government -- reinterpreted the Edmonton commitment some two or three times before finally abolishing it. I could take the time here, and perhaps should take the time although I won’t do it at this time, to read the critical comments of the provincial-municipal liaison committee when those changes were made, when the government unilaterally made those changes in the Edmonton commitment and when it abandoned that commitment.

I should read through those now for members, although I won’t take the time as they have been read into the record before in this House, those critical comments of the provincial-municipal liaison committee when the government over there abandoned market value assessment after having spent something like $100 million to $150 million of taxpayers’ money on the reassessment program.

I could read the comments of the provincial-municipal liaison committee and others from this year. The government broke its commitment to the municipalities when it promised them that it would increase transfers this year in an amount equal to the expenditure of the government, then when it came time to actually apply that the government left but its own capital expenditure, which had increased by something like 12 per cent, and transferred to them only five per cent instead of the six per cent which they had every right to expect under the commitment which the government had given them.

The minister has indicated in a statement in the House that the transfer now will be in the neighbourhood of 5.4 per cent instead of six per cent, but it is still below the commitment he gave to the municipalities. I can just say that in my more than 30 years of being involved one way or another in municipal government, most of it in an elected position, and during my service in this House, I have never seen municipal associations have less faith in the words of a government than they have in this government.

Apart from the merits of legislated revenue-sharing, the government desperately needs it to establish its own credibility. I suggest if it isn’t done it’s going to take years to re-establish that credibility. I suggest the government is not just going to have the time, it is not going to have those years to re-establish it.

I point out again that it does not necessarily cost the government anything to have a legislated revenue-sharing policy or a legislated revenue-sharing act. You can write anything into it that you wish. If you feel you are so short of money now that you can’t possibly increase the amount the government is giving them, at least they would be able to have the guarantee to know that it would not go below that next year. The minister says he wants flexibility; I suggest it is the kind of flexibility to reduce it again further next year that the minister should not have.

There is another matter I want to mention. I disagree very strongly with this government’s policy -- and I guess it is the minister’s policy ton -- to leave the municipal finance branch and the intergovernmental finance and grants policy branch in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I do not see how the minister can possibly have the stature in dealing with the municipalities and municipal associations in this province if he does not even have a budget within his own ministry; if he has to go cap in hand, any time he wants additional funds, to the Treasurer of this province.

I think it was Baron Rothschild who once said something to the effect, “If I can have control of the money in a country I don’t care who makes its laws.” That applies to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; if some other ministry has control of this ministry’s money -- of course, it is all in the same government -- it does not give the minister the direct application of policies and the right to change and reinterpret policies, if you will, that he would have if he had the budget as, incidentally, practically all other ministries have in his government. I intend to pursue this a bit further.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Were you quoting Rothschild?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I was quoting Rothschild.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d better stay and listen. This could be an enlightening experience. He is turning over in his grave now.

Mr. Swart: Within this context, if the Minister of Industry and Tourism had been listening, he would realize it would not do anything to enhance his own government.

There is one further suggestion I want to make to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I hope he will consider this suggestion seriously. If I could, I would also like to have his attention for a moment.

It is my view, and I think I hold it with some validity, that the planning branch of the Ministry of Housing should now be transferred to his ministry and that he should become responsible for all land-use planning in this province. I think it is understood that planning is a very fundamental responsibility of municipalities; practically all other aspects of municipal operation -- the provision of other services -- are tied in with the whole issue of planning.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is much closer to local government in this province than is the Minister of Housing. The decisions that are made with regard to planning, the approvals which the government has to give, I believe should be made by the minister who is closest to municipal government, who has the most dealings with municipal government, and who has the greatest understanding of the problems of municipal government. That certainly is not the Minister of Housing, because, apart from planning -- and even including planning -- the majority of municipalities in this province do not have any contact whatsoever with the Minister of Housing.

Therefore, I would very much like to see that branch brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, because -- if I dare say this -- I believe the minister has the qualities and is the type of person who could administer the Planning Act -- which is always difficult to administer -- in a fair and yet perhaps a firm manner, as is certainly required with planning in this province.

In conclusion, let me say that whether it is a case of credibility, whether it is a case of adequate transfers to municipalities, whether it is using the government’s clout to improve the economic situation, or whether it is fairness in taxation and the provision of services, the record of this ministry -- which, of course, previously was a combined ministry for the last three years -- is a dismal one. I say it is a long road back. I say to the new minister that I urge him to pick up the suggestions from this party, start on that road towards a better relationship and a more adequate funding and more adequate direction for local government.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: We will proceed with vote 601, item 1.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, may I raise a personal point? The two opposition parties have two different critics for this ministry. For instance, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has the interprovincial and the federal-provincial affairs, while I have municipal affairs. The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has the federal-provincial affairs and the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has the municipal affairs. So I am wondering whether it is permissible to have four speakers make opening statements with respect to this, rather than only two?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think so. I had overlooked that point. That seems reasonable. I would, however, draw the member’s attention to vote 602, which is the intergovernmental affairs program . That is the one in which we would hope the members could keep most of their debate and questions concerning federal relationships. But in view of the reminder from the member for Waterloo North of the split personality of this ministry, I would then presume the member for Ottawa East wishes to proceed at this point.

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence.

I would remind you of the reason for needing this: the minister also, in making his opening statement, divided his remarks into two parts. He talked about local government and then he talked about federal-provincial relations.

The critics in the Liberal Party at least are divided on logical lines; I cannot speak for my colleagues to my left but it makes sense to us that federal-provincial relations, the unity of Canada and that sort of thing, would require the full-time work of a minister. We feel there should be another minister taking care of relations with local governments.

I have read the minister’s speech and there are a lot of good things in it. I read especially the part dealing with national unity, federal-provincial conferences, the minister’s approach to the Quebec referendum, sovereignty association. I would agree with most of what the minister said in his speech. In my opinion, Canada is approaching a crisis situation, and I suggest the unity issue is more important than ever now after the recent federal election. The main support for one of the major parties is in the province of Quebec but they happen to be in opposition, whereas the party in government has very little support in that province. I suggest that is going to be a very serious problem.

The new Prime Minister has tried to correct this problem by appointing -- I haven’t had the official word on this, but I understand there has been one appointment from the Senate. That doesn’t really change very much in the sense that one has always had a Senate appointment anyway. I don’t know what portfolio this senator was given. I don’t know if he is a leader in the Senate --

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is Minister of Justice.

Mr. Roy: Flynn?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Your colleague, Bob de Cotret, is closely involved within the Senate now as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Roy: The minister has got to be kidding; oh my God.

Mr. Epp: You never know who’s going to come out on top in these things.

Mr. Roy: He thought he had lost the election, Mr. Chairman. Can you imagine that, having a political career? Only Joe Clark has had a career that --

[3:45]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I will refrain from comment.

Mr. Roy: Only Joe Clark has had a career that has risen on a sharper scale than Bob de Cotret. A few years ago he was just a speech writer in Richard Nixon’s office -- that’s the other Nixon, the one in the US. Now, as I understand from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he has been sent to the Senate and is a cabinet minister as well.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He was called to the Senate.

Mr. Roy: Getting back to my point, you can understand that even with these appointments there will be far fewer ministers from the province of Quebec or French-speaking ministers who will be able on a consistent basis to go to the province of Quebec and carry the federal flag, as has been the case under Prime Minister Trudeau. I’m not making any value judgement about the respective qualities of Trudeau or of a Conservative government as opposed to a Liberal government. I’m just saying I perceive that to be a major problem; and it is a problem that is clearly going to be exploited by Rene Levesque, we see him doing it right now.

Not long ago, as you will recall, the conflict seemed to be constantly between Levesque and Trudeau. Levesque couldn’t stand Trudeau and was knocking him down at every opportunity. Now he is going to take the approach that, “My good pal, Pierre Trudeau, has been rejected by English Canada.” Hopefully that is not going to wash, but there is going to be a serious attempt by the Parti Quebecois to say that the last federal election was basically a rejection by English Canada of “one of ours.” In other words, “My chum, Trudeau, was rejected by English Canada; therefore the federal election confirms what we have been talking about all this time, that there are two Canadas and that French Canada voted one way and English Canada voted the other way.”

That is a facile explanation and I don’t perceive the election in those terms, but certainly it is going to be exploited by Levesque. I mention this because I think this minister -- and I don’t like to throw flowers in too easy a fashion -- would make an excellent minister in charge of intergovernmental affairs. I consider that to be an important portfolio at this time. At this juncture in Canada’s history we could use a minister taking care of federal-provincial relations on a full-time basis; taking care of the constitution and putting forward Ontario’s position, because Ontario’s position is going to be the most important one at this point.

I suspect Ontario is going to be the key province in all of this. When Levesque talks about sovereignty association in Quebec, obviously he is talking about association with Ontario. I don’t think association with the other provinces would matter very much to him, he is talking about Ontario. The major trade exchanges are between Ontario and Quebec, so Ontario’s position becomes extremely important.

I am somewhat saddened in these circumstances that when Ontario’s position is extremely important and when it must give leadership this minister, who is in charge of what I consider to be as important a ministry as any existing now in government at this juncture of our history, is caught up with the day-to-day affairs of local municipalities. I don’t want in any way to denigrate relationships with municipalities, as I think they are very important The fact remains, however, that it requires a full-time minister to take care of that.

In looking at the estimates for this ministry I see the amount of money going to local municipalities. I understand there is more money on that side because of transfer payments, et cetera, but the fact remains that this is a very important ministry. I would suggest that most of the minister’s work is caught up in dealing with municipalities and not in giving leadership in the area of constitutional reform, relationships with other provinces, and finally on the relationship with the federal government.

I say this, and I don’t think I can say it often enough, I think it’s patently unfair when I look at the split of different ministries existing presently in this cabinet and consider the relationships. For instance, just behind you is the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) who claims he doesn’t have very much to do and his ministry should be phased out. There’s a fellow who is doing that, and meanwhile here is a minister who has to take care of municipalities, federal-provincial relations, interprovincial relations and so on; I don’t understand that.

I look at these policy secretariats as well -- and I don’t want to offend my friend, the minister of the north, Mr. Brunelle -- but I really do think, when I consider the allocation of responsibilities between various ministries, somehow I come to the conclusion the Davis government has not fully realized the importance of constitutional reform and the leadership Ontario can give at this juncture in the history of Canada. I think it’s sad.

I would trust, in spite of the fact the establishment has been built up and the ministry has been built up, it is not too late to say we have one minister who’s in charge of looking after federal-provincial relations, one minister who can be the voice of Ontario giving leadership in the unity debate. I think the present minister, Mr. Wells, would be an excellent minister to do that, but unfortunately I suspect most of his time is caught up. I can only come to the conclusion that somehow the Premier (Mr. Davis) has not given the ministry, or this area at this time, the importance it deserves. I’m saddened by that

The other thing of concern to me is what is happening now on federal-provincial conferences. We have heard just recently that Claude Morin, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Parti Quebecois government, has said there should be no further federal-provincial conferences until the referendum. I consider that to be idiocy. He’s saying be doesn’t want to have federal-provincial conferences because it might muddy the waters as far as the referendum is concerned. If you don’t have federal-provincial conferences the main thing you’re going to be saying to the province of Quebec is: “There have been no results. Since the election of Joe Clark there have been no federal-provincial conferences; and obviously the reason we didn’t have any is because we wouldn’t accomplish anything anyway.” He’s asking for one thing; he’s going to be reinforcing his own argument when he’s asking the people of Quebec to vote for sovereignty association.

I think Ontario should take the lead, and if possible we should take advantage of a new momentum now that there has been a change of government federally. I say this with a certain amount of concern, because I’m not that optimistic, personally, about Joe Clark, I really am not; but the fact remains the man should be given an opportunity to see what he can do. Given these circumstances possibly he could work with some of the provincial premiers. I suspect nobody can work with Levesque, because as long as he talks about sovereignty association it’s going to be awfully difficult to arrive at some unanimity before he has his referendum.

Nevertheless, I think leadership should be provided by Ontario to see we have a federal-provincial conference as soon as possible now that we have a new Prime Minister. I think the Premier, through the minister -- or possibly the minister wants to do it -- should advise his national leader of Ontario’s approach to constitutional reform.

First of all, he has to brief Joe Clark on Ontario’s exact position. It was obvious during the television debate that Joe just didn’t know what Bill Davis had said at the federal-provincial conference in February, he just didn’t know. The Premier or this minister should advise the new Prime Minister of Canada that repatriating the constitution should be done unilaterally if you have to do it. That’s what Bill Davis said. Joe didn’t seem to be aware of that. In other words, hopefully the position taken by Ontario will be supported by your national leader.

This is an important step. The approach taken or suggested by the previous Prime Minister was something that was positive, without attaching it to any amending formula. Let’s not muddy the waters there. I think on that basis we should make sure that Bill Davis and Joe Clark are on side on that issue.

We should make sure, as well, that the new Prime Minister is aware of the Ontario government’s position in relation to enshrining fundamental rights, because I don’t think the approach taken by Ontario is something that Joe Clark agrees with at this point. As I understand Joe Clark’s position, he sort of agrees basically with the Pepin-Robarts report that if there’s any enshrining of rights, especially language rights, in the constitution it should be done on the provincial level, with only provincial consent that they can opt in.

I really think the new Prime Minister’s position has been somewhat vague and somewhat uncertain in that area. I think it’s an opportunity for this minister, possibly for this Premier, to get him on side on this, to see that the new Prime Minister agrees with Ontario’s position. As I understand it -- and the minister can correct me -- I think it was Ontario’s position that they wanted to enshrine fundamental rights in the constitution, including language rights, at least in the area of education. That’s how I interpret Ontario’s position.

By the way, I think you could go a step further; your enthusiasm should not be so moderate. You should move in, maybe, in the area of justice as well, or government services. You could go a step further; it would be an important step.

I’m not sure that the new Prime Minister is really on side on this point and I think it would be important for Ontario to advise him of what our position is.

Ontario’s approach to the constitution -- I don’t intend to embarrass you and go through the whole history of it. I would just remind you that if the people of Quebec have some difficulty in perceiving what Ontario’s position is, it’s with some reason.

I can recall after the election of Rene Levesque, back in November 1976, that Bill Davis really didn’t know what was up. He said: “It’s business as usual. There’s nothing to worry about.” I can recall his trips to the Quebec Carnival, not really being too sure of which side to go on. I guess he didn’t think that Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois were serious about their approach or about their policies, or that they were coming forward with a referendum.

It took basically two years. It’s only in the last year, at the end of 1978 that the Premier has come down hard on the fact that sovereignty association, or at least association with sovereignty, is not something that’s negotiable by Ontario.

I think the minister says it well. I’ve read his comments in his speech and I agree with most of the things he says. I agree that it’s somewhat misleading the public of Quebec for Levesque to think he can have all the benefits of independence along with the benefits of association. I think with association comes the responsibility of federalism. You can’t have it both ways. I think it’s important that Ontario’s position come down clear on that point.

I was pleased to see as well -- because I’ve heard the Premier basically talk in a negative sense on that issue, saying sovereignty association is not negotiable, period. But we should talk about something that is positive. We should help the federal troops in Quebec.

I think it should be very clear and I think the minister makes it clear -- he refers to Ryan in his speech -- we should make it clear to the people of Quebec that we are for something positive as well, that we in Ontario believe in constitutional reform. We believe, for instance, in Quebec’s right or in giving them the tools to protect their language and their culture, and so on. There are changes that are needed in this constitution that’s 112 years of age.

I think it’s important that the message doesn’t get across to Quebec -- and I’m afraid that happens very often -- that Ontario is only for the status quo, that we’re prepared to continue with the situation that has existed for so long. I think it’s clear that the message go to the people of Quebec, go to the majority of Quebeckers who still believe in federalism, that we are prepared to negotiate, that we are prepared to participate in changing and reviving, in having a constitution which would represent the society of the 1980s and not only that of 100 years ago. The only fundamental principle we think must be continued is that we start from a premise of federalism. That’s where Levesque’s position becomes untenable and that’s where we fail to accept it. His premise is based on independence and he cannot have it both ways.

[4:00]

Some people like to think that Ryan’s position is somewhat that of sovereignty or independentiste by just another word. It really is not. His basic, fundamental premise is that of federalism, but he believes in fundamental and basic changes.

That’s the message that Ontario should be sending to Quebec. We should emphasize that we not only say that sovereignty association is not negotiable, but we should say it is not negotiable on those terms. We should say that amending the constitution by making it responsive to the Canada of the l980s and to the needs and requirements of the people of Quebec and other provinces is something that Ontario believes in, as long as the basic premise is that of federalism.

The other area where I’m critical of Ontario, is that of late the Premier has been quick to condemn Mr. Levesque about so many of his approaches. I don’t disagree with that stand, but when I view the other federal-provincial conferences and I see the positions the other Premiers take, I find the fact that the other Premiers are of the same political stripe, or at least under the title of Conservative, seems to be somewhat of an impediment for Ontario to take an approach and to condemn some of the approaches taken by some of the other Premiers.

It’s all right to call Rene Levesque a separatist and that sort of thing. He comes up front and doesn’t mince words, he says that is his position. But I sometimes wonder about the approach Premier Lougheed in Alberta has taken. If we were to accept what Premier Lougheed is asking for, as I understand it he wants absolute or darn near full control or jurisdiction over natural resources, and even international trade and international relations with other countries. It’s important that Ontario re-emphasize federalism not only on behalf of the province of Quebec or on behalf of Rene Levesque, but on behalf of some of our western colleagues.

I have never been so disappointed as I was after attending the last two federal-provincial conferences, not only because very little progress was made but because I sometimes sat there and thought there were 10 different countries talking to each other. We were not talking about the same country. The spirit of federalism was not only lacking from Rene Levesque, I thought it was lacking from certain other Premiers. I name Lougheed, but Lyon in Manitoba does not inspire confidence for federalism either.

It’s important, if Ontario is to give leadership and if Ontario is to show the way, that our approach should not look in just one direction, to the east. We should be looking to the west and we should state that with respect to some of the approaches taken by people who profess to be for federalism, if we were to accept what they’re suggesting in practice we might as well forget about the country, because this country will not stay together if there is serious disparity from one province to the next province. I’m afraid that is what would happen if we were to accept all of the requirements or to accept all the demands, of some of the provincial premiers.

There is another thing I want to be a bit critical about. I’ve said this many times to the minister and I’ve certainly said it many times to the Premier. It’s important, if Ontario is to have credibility with the people of Quebec, that this government be seen as doing something.

One of the fundamental suggestions Ontario made at the last federal-provincial conference was for the preservation of the unity of a Canada wherein our bilingual and multicultural heritage can flourish.

But that’s not the picture of Ontario. I know great progress has been made here; and a lot of the credit has to go to this minister and to some of his colleagues. Many of the things that have happened have gone unnoticed at times. I come back to the overall strategy, the strategy of the Premier of this province, who keeps insisting, as he gives rights to the French minority in this province, that he does it in a very subtle way; but when he refuses them, he does it with a lot of flair and a lot of publicity and so on.

The perception of Bill Davis in the province of Quebec is more of the guy who denied, for instance, requests by the Franco-Ontarian Association about, let’s say making French an official language. That’s not a stand I particularly agree with, but there was an awful lot of publicity about that stand last year. The denial of the Premier was not one of, “Look, we can have problems; there are practical implications;” the denial of it was brutal and it was harsh. just like his approach a year ago, last June, in relation to a bill I presented in the House, a bill that was extremely moderate. There were 100 options for the Premier and the government to take; but no, he did it with flair and pizzazz and as brutally as possible; to the point where he in fact distorted what the bill represented. That was the message that went back to the province of Quebec.

If one is asked by one’s friends in Quebec: “What progress have you made? We hear that Davis has done this and that”; and one says, “Do you realize that just a few weeks before the rejection of Bill 89” -- the bill I presented -- “there was an amendment to the Judicature Act which was passed in the House, possibly the single most important piece of legislation for minorities in Ontario since the Education Act back in 1967-68.” They haven’t heard about it. They didn’t hear about this amendment that would guarantee rights to the minorities in our courts; they haven’t heard about it.

If you were to say to me those are the circumstances of political life; I will say to you that’s not the ease, I consider it to be part of an approach.

I come back to this point: It may be good politics in Ontario -- God knows after 37-some years in power you people seem to know something about staying in power and getting votes in Ontario -- but the fact remains that if it’s good politics in Ontario sometimes it’s not very good politics on the national level; sometimes, when forces are working towards the division of the country, it’s important that the national scope take some precedence.

That’s why I am critical of the approach and I think this minister has a role to play in this. I will give you another example. I think it’s going to be important in the referendum debate, extremely important, that we have the French minority in this province as an ally in the debate for federalism.

Look what has happened, again recently. As far back as the Mayo report, that was two or three years ago, it was suggested that in Ottawa-Carleton there should be a homogeneous French-language school board. That was accepted unanimously by the school boards, by the councils of various municipalities in the Ottawa area, by various leaders. It was accepted by almost everyone. Of all these suggestions from Mayo, it was probably the one that had the most unanimity.

Do you know what? This government, in a green paper, rejected it. Professing to send out a green paper to try to get some consensus in the Ottawa-Carleton area, they said, “We want a consensus, we want people to make up their minds.” There was a consensus on the issue, yet that was the only issue that was rejected by the government.

That issue is going to come back; that issue is not going to die. Again, just last week, the Carleton school board, the Ottawa public school board, stated they considered “the suggestion in the green paper on education in Ottawa-Carleton is not workable”; that what they call the “French component” in the schools is not going to be a working proposition. In fact the Carleton school board has set out which schools should be divided. It has done the work of the ministry; yet I suspect it’s going to be rejected again.

There is a lot of publicity about this in the province of Quebec, and these are the things that chip away at the credibility of this Premier and this government. I don’t take any particular delight in saying that. All I am saying is it is extremely important that not only your words have credibility but your actions as well. Your words will have far more credibility if they are backed up by action. This approach, when giving something you do it suddenly and when you refuse it you do it with a lot of pizazz, is not something that is very beneficial in the overall debate about national unity.

I think just last week in the Toronto Star there was some talk about the proposal in the throne speech about debating a resolution on national unity in this Legislature. It is something we could have expected sooner, since 1976 in fact. In case anyone has doubts about the approach of this party or the approach of this member about such a debate, we have always looked forward to it. A lot of things have been debated in this House which we think have had far less importance than a debate such as this.

Our approach throughout has been that if we are going to have that sort of debate we can have substantial unanimity. We can have much positive input by a variety of members on such a debate; but for God’s sake let’s have it at a time when it can have maximum impact. Having waited three years for the debate, why not have it at a time when it can have maximum impact.

The time for that, of course, is as close to the referendum as possible. Having waited this long, I don’t see what the hurry is in proceeding with it. If anyone has any doubts about whether we are in favour of stalling it, it is not a matter of stalling it, it is a matter of having Ontario’s position clearly and forcefully set forward and giving it maximum impact.

Throughout this referendum debate in Quebec, and we have just seen it over the weekend, it is obvious the approach is a very simple one. The Parti Quebecois is proceeding in steps on their move towards independence. They are watering down. It is obvious that it is most important to them to have a “yes.” In other words, the answer is far more important than the question to the Parti Quebecois, so they are going to water the question right down.

There is one thing they are obviously going to have to be saying in connection with sovereignty association. Parizeau has said this and Levesque has said it repeatedly; that there is no way Ontario will not bargain, because it is in the province’s best economic interest. It should be very clear, as the minister said in his speech, they just can’t have it both ways. We should say that as close as possible to the referendum; and it would be most forcefully put if it were said in a debate and it received unanimous support.

This has been our approach. If there has been some delay in bringing on this resolution, so be it. We have waited three years for it, let’s have it at a time when we can have maximum impact. That is the approach I feel should be taken.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy in letting us proceed in this fashion; hopefully we will have something further to say as the estimates proceed.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to participate in discussion of these estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs as the municipal affairs critic for this party.

The minister is well aware that when his ministry was set up almost a year ago the spokesmen for this party were saying to the government that we need a separate ministry for municipal affairs. The minister is also well aware that municipal organizations and leaders of those organizations have been saying that for a long time.

[4:15]

I think the record of the ministry during its first nine and a half months, with the number of problems that are facing the two sides of the ministry as they have been described by the previous speaker, suggests that the idea that we need a separate ministry for the municipal area is still very valid. I feel that it’s in recognition of that that my party has stuck with a separate critic for municipal affairs and I am very privileged to have been appointed to that position.

As the minister is aware, it’s only seven weeks since I left the municipal arena myself, and while the municipality that I left may not be as great, or should I say gargantuan, as that from which the parliamentary assistant came, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, I think that the town of Stoney Creek is an auspicious municipality in its own way.

Certainly in terms of its involvement and its leadership, I have to say that I have a great deal of respect for its mayor, Gordon Dean, who has provided leadership to the council of Stoney Creek. He and I differ on a great number of issues, just as I differ with the positions that are taken by members of the other side of the House, but nevertheless I have a great deal of respect for him and I hope that over the past two and a half years when I served on his council he at least learned from me that members of this party do not have horns and can make a useful contribution.

I also want to associate myself with the praise that was heaped upon the officials of the new ministry by my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). He makes those comments so much better than I do I that I will keep my remarks to associating myself with them. I think the ministry has certainly made some steps forward.

When the minister came to speak to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at their annual meeting last summer he had only been in office literally a matter of hours. I remember he talked to that conference about what he saw as the three Cs. As I recall they were communication, co-operation and something else that temporarily slips my mind. I think the minister is making a very real effort in those areas, but I think the minister is also aware that there is a quagmire ahead and that unless the direction of the government takes some very serious changes then that kind of co-operation, that kind of communication cannot continue simply because the morass of problems facing our municipalities are going to overwhelm him and overwhelm his ministry. I think that would be unfortunate.

The problem of money is always the problem that’s put first, and I regard that as somewhat sad, because I don’t think money is everything, and I don’t think money will buy everything. But unfortunately, with the abandonment of the Edmonton commitment, with the plaything that municipalities appear to have become in the eyes of the government, I think we really are heading into some problems that do depend on dollars.

It seems to me that property taxes have become in the eyes of the government just another form of provincial government revenue. They have joined sales tax, gasoline tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, corporation tax, land transfer tax and all the other kinds of taxation that we have in this province as a mechanism for the provincial government to raise revenue. They are no longer related to the cost of services in a municipality.

They no longer help to provide residents with those local improvements, with those local facilities and with those local services that residents believe property taxes provide them with. The whole grant structure, the whole game that we are now playing since the government got out of the commitment it had made to municipalities, means that we really are seeing property taxes as just another way for the provincial government to aim towards balancing the books.

I think that policy is wrong and I hope that the minister in the years to come will consult with his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), and with the others in the cabinet who are concerned about this area and come to grips with it. Of course I hope property taxes and grants to municipalities will become enshrined in legislation, as my colleague has suggested. If that is not possible, I urge the minister to look at making a new commitment to municipalities, so they know where the province stands, so they know what sort of money they can expect next year and the year after, and so property taxpayers can judge the government on the basis of a commitment it is making rather than on a policy that changes from year to year. It is only by means of that kind of organized commitment that municipalities can conduct the planning necessary for their future.

I very seriously believe municipal government is the most important form of government for the property taxpayers of this province. Municipal government provides people with services that are very visible to them and very close to them. After consultation with many of my colleagues, and I am sure it is exactly the same on the other benches, I know a lot of the problems, probably the majority of problems that are coming to the members from their constituents, are based in some way on services to which the municipal level of government has input.

I would like to see the province enshrine in legislation a constitution, if you like, for the municipalities of this province, with terms of reference that state generally, but clearly and concisely, what the relationships between municipal government and provincial government, and between municipal government and people, are to be for now and for the future. I think if that approach were taken many of the hassles we get into in municipal government and with regard to municipal government could be avoided.

If I can just take the example of annexation, which is one that is very close to the hearts of many who live in close proximity to our larger urban centres, and which in a sense is the heart of the problem many regional municipalities are facing at the present time -- except within a regional municipality it is not called annexation, it is part of the regional review process; but it still involves shifting municipal boundaries in order to move people from one municipality to another without physically moving their homes.

The government has been unable to come to grips on how to deal with municipal boundaries, with annexation, because there is no philosophy lying behind it. If we understood there was one sort of municipal government for urban areas and another sort of municipal government for rural areas, then rural municipalities would know if they permitted urban development within their municipality the boundaries would be shifted in order to move the new urban growth from a rural municipality to an urban municipality; but we don’t know that.

If we knew annexation was to be decided by a vote of the people who lived in the municipality from which land is being annexed, then we could set up our procedures; but that is not what is happening. If we knew decisions were to be based on the majority view in the whole of the area concerned, then people in rural municipalities would know whenever a request for annexation came up they would lose because their voice would be outweighed by the voice of those who live in the city; but we don’t know that either, though that appears to be what is happening at the present time.

We can play around with procedures, we can play around with the Ontario Municipal Board and with hearings, and with public participation and everything else, but unless we have the guidelines under which these things are to happen, then the battles are going to continue. The incredible expense to taxpayers of hearings and lawyers and everything else is going to continue and we are not going to make any progress in dealing with the fundamental questions.

In the minister’s opening statement he made reference to the regional review that is being considered at present in one municipality in southern Ontario, but he conveniently forgot the fact that there have been regional reviews in several others and that there are other regions now waiting for a review. I am thinking in particular of Haldimand-Norfolk, which is the subject of some legislation on the order paper.

We have a problem in regional municipalities right now in that neither the people in the urban part of those municipalities nor the people in the rural part are satisfied with the structure that exists. I commend the minister for his comments about the review that is being considered now, because at least we are talking about public participation. But the world did not start on the day the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs was created, nor did government policy change dramatically on that day -- at least as far as I am able to determine.

I want to suggest to the minister that he has to accept some responsibility for his government’s policy over the past seven years since regional governments were first touted in a big way in this province. He also has to answer to the people who live in every regional municipality we have now as to what the future holds and as to how the problems they are facing are going to be solved.

Literally millions of dollars have been spent on reviews for the regions I am concerned about. Those reviews have been the subject of a tremendous amount of public discussion, and they now appear to be lying on the shelf, with one or two very small points having been implemented. The overwhelming majority of concerns -- the important concerns of boundaries and representation and tax base and those kinds of things -- have been swept aside. Municipal councils in the regions have been told to sort it out by themselves and come back with recommendations. The minister knows full well those things are not going to happen, because battle lines are going to be drawn between the various sides within every single region.

The minister introduced recently some relatively minor amendments to the Municipal Act and to the acts affecting certain regional municipalities. I do not want to get into debating those now, but they too illustrate my concern about the lack of philosophy and the lack of guiding direction on the government side with regard to municipal government.

The bills that have been introduced do not deal with every request that has been made by a regional or other municipality. They deal with some of them; they deal with the less controversial ones. But other requests for changes to legislation have been left aside. I would like to know why. I would like to know on what criteria the minister decides whether or not to proceed with a request from a municipality for a change in legislation.

I am going to take one as an example, and that is the request from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth for transfer to the region of the power to set store hours within the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth rather than leaving that item at the lower tier as it is at the present time. While I think the position that has been taken by some members of that regional council is not a responsible one, I have to say to the minister that, when looked at objectively, the request makes sense. Store hours, when municipalities are in close proximity, when suburban municipalities surround a large urban municipality, might well be considered as a regional matter.

[4:30]

There are other things being dealt with regionally that probably should be dealt with at the lower tier. Requests for those have not been forthcoming because of the battles that are going on at the present time. I really ask the minister how he decides which proposals to accept, which ones to reject and how the future of every region in this province is to be decided. If we leave it to the feuds among local councils, among citizens’ groups, among the residents of the various municipalities, all we are going to do is breed bitterness; we are not going to come up with any solutions.

The matter of property tax reform is another area that is causing great grief to municipalities at the present time. Year after year since 1969 we have had promises from the government that changes are to be made. It now appears that if changes are to be made they won’t be made for some time in the future and those changes may not be like anything that is presently under discussion.

If that is the case, then fair enough. But again I suggest to the minister the solution won’t be found until a decision is made as to what property taxes should be doing, what they should be paying for and what role of the municipality vis-à-vis its property taxes is to be. While we look at assessment as something separate from the role of local government, and while we look at the revenue raised from assessment as just another provincial government revenue, then the problems will never be solved to the satisfaction of people right across this great province.

Many other areas have been the subject of expressions of concern from municipal organizations over the past few years. The whole problem being faced now with regard to conflict of interest of local councillors and of school board officials seem to me to be based in the government’s lack of trust of municipal politicians and of municipal councils. It seems to me that the government thinks of municipal government as something to which it can pass the blame when things go wrong, as something to which it can pass the responsibility for decisions that the provincial government doesn’t want to take, and as a buffer between people with problems and the provincial government with the authority to solve them.

We only have to go through the Municipal Act to see the tremendous detail in which the role of municipalities is defined to realize that something isn’t as it should be. I believe municipal councils must be given a position of trust, they must be given the power of ultimate decision-making in a certain group of areas and that the members of those councils must be treated exactly the same as the members of this House.

I must say I find it very strange indeed that the guidelines for conflict of interest for municipal elected officials are so very strict they prohibit input from an alderman or councillor or school trustee on the matter of negotiating a contract in which his or her spouse is a member of the bargaining unit, yet members of this House, particularly on the government side, are involved on a day-to-day basis in having input into decisions that affect everybody, including their families.

I really believe we have to put local councils into a position of responsibility. The planning area that has already been mentioned is, in my view, a prime role for local government, but at the moment planning is proceeding almost in a vacuum. Local councils are passing their responsibility for the ultimate decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The municipal board is there as a quasi-judicial body which terrifies many of the population who wish to appeal, on humanitarian grounds, planning decisions that affect their immediate neighbourhood and their municipality. In the end, when it comes to the crunch, some of the really crucial decisions are being made by the cabinet. In that regard, the white paper introduced the other day by the minister’s colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is a step in the right direction, although it is certainly full of problems that we will be talking about some future day.

If the province would define the role of municipalities in the planning area, and if it would define its own goals for the development of Ontario, many of our problems could he solved. In addition, Ontario Municipal Board hearings such as the one going on today in the regional municipality of Niagara with regard to the preservation of fruitland could be avoided, and the tremendous expenses associated with those hearings could be avoided.

Local councils at the moment are chasing the dollar. They have the notion that growth means assessment, which means lower taxes for everybody. It can be demonstrated that is not true in the majority of cases, but it is still a myth held by many local councillors and a myth that this minister could do much to dispel and help to make Ontario a better place for everybody, to make sure that our land is used in the best possible way for everybody, rather than having the battles we are engaged in at the present time.

There are many other areas that have been the cause of concern of municipalities. Just the other day my colleague from Welland-Thorold and I were pleased to meet a delegation concerned about amendments to the Fire Departments and Police acts. I do not know why the government has not seen fit to move on those changes. Many of them seem very reasonable. If the minister intends to keep up with his commitment to communication, then I suggest to him that where municipal functions interact with other ministries, as they do most of the time, it is incumbent upon him to inform municipalities as to what is going on and why changes that seem very reasonable cannot be introduced.

I understand the response of the minister’s colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to be that legislation cannot be introduced at the moment since the government will not be able to get it through the House because of the minority situation we have. I want to suggest to the minister that is just not good enough. The minister should not be prejudging the members on this side as to the action we will take on legislation. If he really wants to know what we think, I challenge the minister to get the legislation introduced, and we will then tell him what we think.

Many of my other concerns will be dealt with as we move through the estimates, but I want to reiterate that, until we have a direction from the minister and until we know where local government is headed and what local government is supposed to be doing, we are going to continue to be heading into problems. We have a responsibility to make sure that municipal government is good government, to ensure that it is responsible government, and to ensure that people know that when they elect a municipal council they are electing a group of people who have certain responsibilities, certain duties and certain functions; that group of people -- their municipal council -- will be there to do the job, and if the voters at the next municipal election do not like it, then they are to change their local council.

But the present setup, where we have appeals from municipal to OMB to cabinet, where we have the cabinet passing the responsibility for its decisions to municipal councils whenever it feels uncomfortable enough about making a decision that it would prefer to opt out, in those circumstances we are not going to have good municipal government and we are not going to have good relations between municipal and provincial governments in this province.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, is this an appropriate time for you to reply to the lead speeches? You don’t seem very anxious to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Actually I was expecting there were going to be a couple of other lead speeches. But I guess they will come under the general vote.

I would like to thank all the members who have participated so far. The contributions have been very good. They have certainly pointed up some of the problems we have. They have been critical to some degree, and we always welcome a little criticism over here. I will deal with that in a minute.

I would like to welcome the new member for Wentworth. While it may not be quite his maiden speech, certainly it is his maiden participation in the estimates. I welcome him and compliment him on his presentation.

I would like first of all to answer same of the things he said. He posed some good questions, one of them being: Where is local government going? Are we giving direction to local government? I think we are.

While we can all dwell upon the gloomy side from time to time, and it becomes very effective to do so when we are criticizing someone else about what has not been done, I think my friend would agree that basically we do have a good local government in this province; that we have 837 municipal governments made up of men and women who have been elected and who are doing a good job.

The member asked, where is the direction for them? From our point of view, I think we have tried to give them the kind of direction that we as another order of government can do. My friend will notice I use the term “order of government.” Ever since I took over this portfolio we have tried to stay away from this business of referring to senior and junior levels of government, and so forth, because I do not view local government in that light. That is the beginning point in stating what the direction is to local government.

We have different services that have to be performed in this province for the people. Some of those services are performed by what we call local government, some are performed by provincial governments and some are performed by the federal government. The same people elect all of us, the same people pay their taxes to all of us, and the same people expect that all of us will co-operate and provide the services that we were elected and given the responsibility to provide. That does not mean we will not argue and discuss with each other from time to time. But basically it underlines that we have to be co-operating.

The theme I was trying to set at the meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was that very theme, that we are all working for the same boss, we are all working for the same taxpayers, and we have to sort out how we can each do our jobs best. That takes us, for instance, to the area of property tax. I do not agree with the member. Property tax is another tax, just like income tax, corporation tax, sales tax, the tax on liquor, and so forth. It is another one of the taxes that is collected from people in this country. It is collected by one order of government. It is collected for them to fulfil their services. It is a tax that is exclusively for that order of government, local government in this province. But it is a tax, just like income tax, corporation tax and all the others.

Mr. Swart: Only it’s more regressive.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not necessarily more regressive. My friends always talk about it being more regressive. We have fried to do things to make it less regressive. But the fact is that it is the most convenient tax for local government. It has always been the tax that has been reserved especially for local government, along with other things, such as licensing fees and so forth.

[4:45]

But if that is the case, then it has to be viewed in the context with all the other taxes, because it is a tax that comes out of my friend’s pocket and mine. Therefore, we cannot separate it and put it away as something special. If it is regressive, we have to attack that regressivity. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad tax. I suppose if we were all to get right down to it and ask the people of this province they would say all taxes are bad. They would love to get rid of them all. They would love to have no taxes and yet they’d love to have many more services provided for them, which is a situation that it is not possible to have.

We’re living in a day and age where governments have been asked to provide more and more services. Those services have to be paid for, therefore we have taxes and we have to sort out what governments have various taxing powers. We discuss and negotiate with the federal government over their tax sharing because they have very broad tax collecting powers by which they can collect money, again from the same people. We have powers to collect other moneys and the local government basically has property tax.

As I said, you have to look at them all together. I do not have all the figures in front of me and I can’t pull them out of my head at the minute, but I recall that some of the figures used here over the past few years were to the extent that the property tax had not risen in the early part of the l970s to the same degree that other taxing sources had. At one point in time property tax had held rather level while other taxes had increased to a greater extent, therefore perhaps we had a kind of false imbalance. Then when it came the turn of property tax to increase at a little greater rate than some of the other taxes, there was a great outcry because property tax was increasing.

As I recall, and I apologize because I don’t have the figures here, this was somewhat the situation. In this business of trying to keep all taxes in proper proportion, it became obvious that property tax could stand to increase slightly because other taxes had carried the brunt in holding property taxes level for part of the 1970s.

As I said, we’d all like to hold all taxes level at all times, but with the increased need for services, and inflation on the amount we pay in labour and for goods and services, that becomes an impossibility for governments. Then we have superimposed on that the whole principle we’re now trying to achieve of the government’s taking less of the provincial product for public spending to try to balance our budget and so forth, so we have financial pressures.

The fact remains that property tax is a concern. It’s another tax, like all taxes, and we try to make it less regressive through the property tax credit. Perhaps when we get into my estimates a little more we’ll cover this, and I’m sure you will discuss it also in the estimates of the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck). Property tax credit provides the vehicle to take the regressivity out of the property tax, to make it more equitable and, in a way, to help level things out; to help take the burden of property tax off our senior citizens particularly, as well as other groups in the community who find it difficult to pay that tax; in fact that is what is done.

I was asked a question in the House the other day and my answer to it was that the property tax credit means that about 60 per cent of the senior citizens of this province pay no education tax. In other words, they receive the equivalent or more, in their tax credit return, of the amount of their education tax. That’s a rather significant thing when we think about it. That’s part of the direction we try to give to municipalities.

I think the point is very valid that we have to sit down together and try to decide how we’re going to share our revenue. My friends have made the point that we should have some form of legislated revenue-sharing, as they have in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba I believe. We do have legislated revenue-sharing of a sort in the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act. We have some legislation in this province which sets out, albeit different from the others, an attempt in legislation passed by this House to say that certain moneys will be given to the municipalities. In fact those legislated revenue-sharing arrangements in other provinces are another way of doing that. Perhaps it’s a more modern way of saying that you can have a certain percentage of this tax and that tax.

Mr. Swart: It’s more complete.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want to tell you that I’ve looked into them. I will perhaps discuss them a little later when we get to the third vote and talk about transfers, because I haven’t got all the figures here yet. I have looked into them and they don’t create the Utopian situation they might lead you to believe. British Columbia, as I recall, even with its legislated revenue-sharing arrangements, shares much less than Ontario does with its municipalities. It’s still open to some rather unilateral decisions on the part of the provincial government which can change the situation. British Columbia puts a great deal of stock in direct payments to its taxpayers. In other words, it shares so much revenue through revenue sharing, but it also pays a portion of the local government’s property taxes by direct payments to people. They count that money in the municipal transfers when they make up their total amount transferred.

You and I -- or at least I, I don’t know about you -- would see the business of direct payments to people to offset the property tax they are paying as a very good vehicle. We can take great credit for that and say, “You were assessed this much in property tax and now you’re getting a cheque for $200 from your provincial government.” The municipal people who are elected don’t see that as a very viable way of handling the money. They would rather have it transferred under some kind of transfer arrangements -- unconditional grants being the first choice, and that not being attainable conditional grants -- rather than direct payments to taxpayers.

In British Columbia they do it the other way. They get up to about 50 per cent of the costs of municipal or local government paid by the province, but at least 12 per cent of that comes from direct payments, as I recall.

Anyway, I think we can get into a larger discussion of that particular facet of local government-provincial government relationship when we get to the vote on actual transfers. What I’ve been trying to say here is that we think we have to have co-ordination and co-operation with local government on financial matters. I don’t think we should constantly be at war with them over this. We may not always be able to agree, hut we should work together to find out if there aren’t ways we can co-operate and ways we can work out arrangements to share revenues.

To that end, through the Municipal Liaison Committee and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee we now have a long-term fiscal arrangements committee, as I said, that is meeting. They realize our problems; we realize their problems. We are trying to come up with some kind of arrangement that might benefit both of us for the short term.

I want to emphasize that. We started out calling this the long-term fiscal arrangements program, looking at things like legislated revenue sharing, but we decided the most practical thing was to come up with something for the short term. If we could put that into effect for the short term we would then have more time to look at the long term.

I think one of the realities we had to point out to the local government people on the committee was that this government is committed to a policy of balancing its budget a few years down the road and that would have to be built into any kind of arrangement we arrived at. That being one of the parameters within which we are working, it is perhaps better to work out some arrangement that lives within that parameter for the short term; then when we arrive at that point, the long-term fiscal arrangement for sharing between municipalities and the province will perhaps be ready to be put into place. We can look at it when we arrive at that point.

That is the kind of thinking we have gone through: A short-term arrangement for the next three or four years; and then time, first to look in greater depth at a long-term fiscal arrangement, and then the time to put it in after we have arrived at our position of balancing the provincial budget.

In keeping with this philosophy about municipal government I have been talking about, this kind of direction, we really believe -- I know it’s sometimes hard to put this into practice, because as soon as I say this someone comes back with something we’re doing that is in a way taking away from the autonomy of the municipalities; but basically nor philosophy is that the local government segment of the municipal government should be autonomous and we should provide for them as much autonomy as possible.

That cuts both ways. It has been indicated in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act we are trying to take away that autonomy and lay down set guidelines that are much too rigid. I would point out to my friend that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act has come about because people in this House and others in this province have said we have to have some kind of conflict of interest act for the local government segment of this province. We have a conflict of interest set of rules for all of us here; we have a conflict of interest set for this House. They may be a little different from that of local government, but that is because our roles are perhaps a little different. There are some pretty rigid conflict of interest rules you and I have to live by. We have been asked to bring those rules into effect at the local level and that we have done.

It is interesting that we have at the present time the other situation where we have put in permissive legislation for local governments to do something and they are saying: “We don’t want you just to do that; we want you to actually put in the rules.” I am referring to the whole area of conducting municipal election campaigns and campaign expenditures and so forth. We have made it possible for municipalities to be opposite to the conflict of interest situation. We have made it possible for them to put in their own bylaws to govern campaign contributions, publication of campaign expenses and so forth. We have said: “We believe in the autonomy of municipalities; there is the enabling legislation, you carry it out.”

On the other hand, we are getting criticism for doing that. People in the municipalities are writing us and saying: “We don’t want you just to do that; we want you to actually pass a whole set of rules and regulations and legislation that will apply to every municipality.”

I prefer the idea of putting in enabling legislation. Perhaps as the conflict of interest situation is looked at and reviewed over the next few months somebody is going to arrive at the point of saying perhaps municipalities should have some of that autonomy back to set their own rules, but I rather doubt it in the conflict of interest situation.

That can even be carried forward to the regional reviews. It has been suggested in both regional reviews, and amalgamations and annexations and so forth, that somehow there is great bitterness and great hardship created when we leave this to the local people to settle and that we should be able to settle it here. Well this is no Valhalla here. We can’t come up with the magical answers here and the hardships will not be alleviated. If we attempt to come in and override the local people it will only be directed, probably, at you and I who sit here.

That is why I have said, for instance, we are not now prepared to engage in any provincially-appointed local government review in Durham or Haldimand-Norfolk. Let’s do something different. We have had local government reviews that have gained high profile and are now sitting on the shelf, such as Hamilton-Wentworth. I have said to them: “You come back and tell us what you want to do. We are not magical judges of what you want to do. You come back and tell us what you would like to have us do.”

I agree with my friend. Sometimes they ask us to do things and we don’t do them. I can’t recall why we didn’t put into legislation the licensing situation, but I will find out when we get further into the estimates. Basically, I would like them to come back and say to us, “This is how we would like to see our area rearranged”; and then we will do that. That is far better than us trying to decide unilaterally, without the kind of advice and input, without the kind of first-hand knowledge of those people who live in an area and who are elected from that area.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold talked about us having the money in our budget. We do have the money in this budget, that is precisely what we are voting here today. We have the $538 million that goes into unconditional grants to the municipalities, that is the same as any other ministry. He said: “We should have money, the same as any other ministry.” We do have the money; that is exactly what these estimates are all about, they are about the unconditional grants to the municipalities.

[5:00]

We do not have the money in these estimates that goes to municipalities for roads from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for sewer and water projects from the Ministry of the Environment, or to the boards of health from the Ministry of Health and so forth. That is because those are specific conditional grants related to the responsibilities of those municipalities. I do not think my friend is suggesting that we should have within this ministry, even if it were a single ministry of municipal affairs, all the money for all the grants in those other ministries where the conditions of the ministry are concerned with the transfer of the money.

That, of course, brings us to the larger question that we talked about in our opening statement of conditional grants versus unconditional grants. The municipalities would like to see more unconditional grants and fewer conditional grants. I would say to my friend that, as that occurs, more money will indeed come into the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and be dispensed, on whatever formula is arrived at, through the unconditional grant procedures. But at the moment we have here the roughly $538 million in transfer payments and the rest of the money that goes to municipalities -- up to nearly $3.8 billion -- through the whole variety of mechanisms which, as he knows, are spelled out in great detail in Ontario Assistance to Local Governments. On page two those are spelled out in detail and represent, as I said in my opening remarks, a 5.4 per cent increase over last year.

We all co-ordinate the parts of the budgets of other ministries that go to municipalities, but I think my friend can see that those ministers are very concerned about their programs; they make up a big part of the operation of their ministry. There is no way that money could be in any other ministry such as this one. It must be in the ministry that is connected with the program. But we do have the money for unconditional grants here, and that is what we are talking about; in the third vote we are going to have plenty of time to discuss that.

Let me say a few words about the contribution of the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I very much appreciated his comments. He always brings to this House some very excellent comments in this kind of debate. He and I agree on a lot of things; we do not agree on everything. But his comments are excellent, and I thought he made a very fine contribution in his opening remarks today.

I would like to pick up on one thing which I particularly noted and which indicates the dilemma we face today. When he was referring to the Premier of Alberta, and Alberta’s position on natural resources, he said he believed we should state that we believe in federalism, in a federal state, as the beginning. That is where I begin; that is where he begins; that is where everyone begins. That points up the dilemma we are in.

We believe in federalism; we believe in a federal state. We then believe that within that position we should develop -- not just continue the status quo -- the kind of federal state that will allow Quebec to maintain its cultural and linguistic heritage and to prosper within this federal state in the future. The status quo will not do; I agree with that. Most people agree with that today. Only those with blinkers on would not agree with that.

However, that is where we have differing opinions between two provincial Premiers. The Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, does not accept that. He says: “No, within a federal state we cannot have the kind of future we want for Quebec. We must have” -- as he calls it now -- “sovereignty-association.” Which I think is basically sovereignty with a little sugar coating to try to convince the rest of us that we should all go along with it because it will not be all that bad. Plus he wants to be sure he has all the good things that are going now as part of a federal state without being part of it and without having the responsibilities.

The difference is that although we have differences of opinion with Premier Lougheed about natural resources, he starts from the premise of believing in a federal state. He believes we should stay part of a federal state and he believes we should have a united Canada. From there, he then fights very hard for the position that he feels is what he should have within a federal state for natural resources.

We all don’t agree completely with what he has in mind. We don’t agree with some of his premises. But the fact is that he does believe in a federal state and he is not saying, “We want to make Alberta a sovereign state and keep everything to ourselves.”

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: That’s the difference.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Wait a minute, though. Now, what I am showing you -- this is the dilemma -- is that as soon as you take that position and translate it into Quebec, and if you get a person in Quebec who says, “Yes, I am for a federal state” -- now the present Premier won’t do that but if you get a person in there, a federalist who says, “Yes, I am for a federal state” -- and then you get down to the nitty-gritty business of deciding on a new constitution and some other things, believe me you are going to have some of them saying the same thing about some of the powers they want as Premier Lougheed is saying about natural resources. They are going to say, “We want communications to be a completely provincial responsibility. We don’t believe in a CBC or a national communications policy. It should be completely provincial.” You may not agree with that and people out west may not agree with it and a lot of the rest of us won’t.

That is why the job of negotiating a new constitution is very difficult, because within the kind of federal state we are all going to be looking at, some of the kinds of demands of provinces within a federal state are going to be very difficult. The Alberta situation, I think, has brought that right to a head for us in the last year. That as I say is the dilemma we face. That is why it is not going to be an easy job.

For instance, a negative vote in the referendum, a defeat of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, is not -- and I emphasize this -- going to get us back to the status quo. It is going to bring us to negotiating that new constitution for a revitalized federal state in Canada. It is going to be a tough job and there is going to be an awful lot of hard bargaining that will have to go on and an awful lot of considering of positions. I think the situation that is always brought up about the west shows that very clearly, because I am firmly convinced the kind of things the west wants are new deals under a federal state, certainly not separation, as Rene Levesque wants, and we see how hard the negotiations are when we come to facing those particular situations.

As I said in my opening remarks, I hope we will get down to business right away. The new Prime Minister of Canada has been sworn in, the new Minister for Federal-Provincial Relations has been appointed --

Mr. Roy: Who is that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Bill Jarvis, the member for Perth, from southwestern Ontario, from --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: From Stratford.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Stratford, yes. So he will be now handling that, along with my friend Senator Flynn, who is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada. They will be the two federal ministers, I hope, who will carry on and make up the steering committee of the continuing committee of ministers that will be working on the constitution.

Mr. Roy: It takes some getting used to, calling a senator a minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You will get used to it, Albert. You will get used to it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh, Albert will never get used to it.

Mr. Havrot: He’ll live with it. He’ll thrive on it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are many other things I could comment on, Mr. Chairman, but I think we will get plenty of opportunity as we go through the various votes, to deal with those. I will limit myself to what I have just said.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Now, if we can keep our discussion to item 1 of vote 601.

On vote 601, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Swart: There are three points here I would like the minister to deal with. I have mentioned at least two of them previously, and I would like to hear the minister’s comments on them.

The first is some further discussion on the retention of the municipal finance branch and the grants policy branch in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. Either he misunderstood me or I did not explain myself properly with regard to the budget which he has. My real concern is that the municipal finance branch, it seems to me, should be within his ministry.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I wonder if I may interrupt and ask if that is not under local government and grants to governments.

Mr. Swart: Subject to your ruling, I really believe this is under ministry administration. It is really the administration, I think, rather than the details of the program.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. I am not going to argue because as far as main office is concerned, one can work just about anything under that heading. I am admitting that, but at the same time the hope was we could perhaps discuss more of these items under their proper vote. But you may proceed.

Mr. Swart: I humbly submit this is a principle under the administration of the main office. It simply seems to me there would be much closer liaison with the municipal finance branch if it was directly under the ministry. Granted, the unconditional grants, which don’t lend themselves to much administration in any event, now come under his ministry. The whole detail of the transfer system to municipalities, it seems to me, should be within his ministry. Any changes that are made, not just in the amount of the unconditional grants hut the whole principle of whether grants are unconditional or whether they are on the basis of a percentage, the whole detail of municipal grants, it seems to me, gets prime direction from his ministry.

I think it can be done better if that municipal finance and grants branch does come under his ministry rather than under the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. If those senior officials are accountable to the minister over them, and they certainly are, then I would prefer to have them accountable to a minister of municipal affairs, if I may use that term in this context rather than to any other minister in the government. I would like the minister to comment further on that.

Secondly, I would like him to comment a bit further on the matter of the transfer of funds from the federal to the provincial ministry. This comes to some degree under the Treasurer, nevertheless this minister is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Again it seems to me that the grants which were allotted from the federal government this year for the purposes of OHIP, medicare and post-secondary education were substantially greater than the increase in the estimates of those ministries for those purposes.

Although these may now be to some extent unconditional grants that this government is getting from the federal government, nevertheless these grants were in lieu of those grants which were conditional grants. Was this money used in other areas? Is it not true that the provincial government is putting in less of its own money this year into OHIP and medicare than it did the previous year, and is the same not true of post-secondary education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Swart: The third item I would like the minister to comment on -- and once again, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this does come under his administration -- is whether the community planning department of the Ministry of Housing could not function better in his ministry than it functions presently in the Ministry of Housing.

[5:15]

I realize he is not going to criticize the Ministry of Housing. It is not my intent either to criticize the Ministry of Housing. It just seems to me it is more logical to come under this minister. For instance, this minister has introduced a bill to restructure government to some extent in the Parry Sound district.

This will be dealt with -- I am not sure -- perhaps even later this week. It seems to me one of the major considerations in any restructuring should be consideration of planning principles, yet if that comes under another ministry it’s much more difficult to have the full and coordinated input into those decisions you have to make than if it came directly under your ministry.

In my introductory comments I did put forth some reasons on why I think planning generally is more appropriately under your ministry than it is under the Ministry of Housing. I don’t intend to repeat them at this time -- I think the minister will probably remember the arguments I put up. But I think it’s such an integral part of municipal operation that it should be your responsibility rather than the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing.

I feel the same about the Niagara Escarpment Commission because that is really planning too. The amount of coordination necessary between the escarpment commission and municipal planning is considerable. It seems to me there should be a transfer ultimately of responsibility from the escarpment commission. That plan should become part of the municipal plan, because municipal planning, as I have already stated, is a very important part of municipal operations. It seems to me the whole thing should be under the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs rather than being left in the Ministry of Housing, where certainly the ministry is one, two, three or four steps further removed from local government.

I would like to have the comments of the minister on these three items.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, first of all I will comment on the remarks my friend has made about the municipal finance branches that were left in Treasury.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, there naturally was some discussion last summer, when the ministry was broken off from Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, as to what branches should and should not become part of this new ministry. It was quite obvious some should come to this ministry and others should stay in Treasury.

The two financial branches we’re talking about -- and I believe we talked about those in the bill to establish this ministry last fall -- have functions that involve this ministry and municipal finance and backup information on municipal finance. They also are tied into the general fiscal planning and economic planning of the Ministry of Economics and the Treasurer’s operation.

They are part of a ministry that had been developed and built up over the last five years or so as an integrated ministry and they were integrated branches. They weren’t branches that could automatically be taken off in total; they would have had to have been split up to some degree.

The decision was made at the time that we could leave them in Treasury and through liaison with them -- particularly through Mr. Clasky’s operation and Eric Fleming’s local government operation -- use the resources and expertise of those branches to do the kind of financial work we needed. They would be there to do the financial planning that Treasury needed as part of their overall planning -- that is the municipal financial planning that has to be a big part of Treasury’s total economic fiscal planning. This is all part of this business I was talking about of the property tax being part of, for instance, general taxation. There has to be integration of effects and future happenings in the property tax field, in the total looks at all the financial tax planning of the province.

So, we decided we could leave those branches there intact and use the expertise there for our purposes. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is working not too badly. We agreed that we would review it, probably after a year or a year and a half at operation, and if we can work out a better system, we will work it out.

The important thing from the member’s point of view, and from the point of view of the municipalities, is first of all that that group does not set the ground rules for the grants. There is a misunderstanding there. We get the financial information -- statistics, backup, projections, et cetera -- from the financial groups in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. They collect information from around the province and from municipalities, but we make the decisions and the recommendations to cabinet on the unconditional grant parameters and programs.

I suppose I could quote back to the member his words of Rothschild. The House is voting the money to us here; we make up the ground rules and the parameters as to how that money will be distributed to the municipalities, living within the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act and other parameters of this government.

But, just as in any other ministry in this government, we do not have the sole say. It all has to go back through the process -- to cabinet, through Policy and Priorities Board, budget planning sessions and so forth. But we make the presentations on that money, the $538 million that is in our budget. We make the decisions as to how we will recommend that that be put into the unconditional grants to the municipalities.

It is not a case of us not having the authority to do that in our ministry. We do. The only thing we do not have is a group of people who collect the information and provide us with all the background -- the parameters, the projections, the computer runs and so forth.

This is, I suppose, to some degree a test of whether governments can do what they say everyone else should do; that is, cooperate and co-ordinate and not duplicate services. In other words, here we have two ministries. We are in the same government; we are all working together. Just because we happen to be split off under two ministers and deputy ministers, does that mean we have to duplicate all the services? Can we not use those services there?

We are going to go ahead and see if we cannot do that over the next little while. If the municipalities of this province find that the process is not working, we want to hear from them; and I am sure the municipal liaison committee will tell us. Internally, we want to be sure that our staff is able to get the information they want and to serve the municipalities. We will assess that ourselves, believe me and, if it is not working, we will come up with recommendations to make some changes.

The second area of concern raised by my friend was the federal transfer payments. I would love to discuss that with the member in great detail for the next 15 hours or so, but I feel that is the prerogative of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). He is the one who does the negotiating in that particular area. We, as the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, are present for the technical parts of intergovernmental liaison. But in this particular and very important area, where we have a Ministry of Treasury and Economics, and a whole staff that is geared to the federal-provincial financial planning section, it does the negotiations. I do not feel it would be fitting in this ministry to discuss that item, which is one of the primary items for the Treasurer to discuss in his estimates.

Mr. Bradley: That one is going to be a dry well now, anyway.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would not count on that.

Mr. Bradley: And they’re your friends.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Does my friend mean he is not counting on that opening up now? We will have to see.

The third area of concern raised by the member was in regard to the community planning branch, which is now in the Ministry of Housing. It was at one time in the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. The first Comay report, if I recall correctly, suggested that it probably should not be there and that it should be more closely connected with the Ministry of Housing, or the Ministry of Housing should be more closely connected with planning, the net impact of all that to be to make it easier for housing to be built in this province and to be co-ordinated with the total planning process.

In the reorganizations and in the development of Treasury and Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs as a ministry, after their beginning, they started to streamline and look at functions within their ministry, vis-à-vis the other ministries, they transferred community planning out to Housing.

Whether it should come into this ministry or not, I really haven’t thought about at this point in time. I think that is something you should put to the Premier (Mr. Davis), or to my colleague, the Minister of Housing, or others who are looking at the whole matter of where particular functions belong.

As you know, under the new Planning Act a big thrust of the presentation in the white paper is to have more planning decisions made locally. This is something I think is a good thing and which, perhaps, will change the character of the community planning branch in the Ministry of Housing. Then there will be some rethinking of it, but I really hadn’t thought about the particular idea and so I don’t feel I can comment on it one way or another at this point. I certainly can’t say I agree with it, but I am not saying I disagree with it either. It may be that at some point in time down the road, it will be a logical thing to happen.

Mr. G. I. Miller: There is one thing I am concerned about in item 1 of vote 601. It is the increase in cost of administration from $635,000 to $909,000 in the estimated budget for 1979-80. The minister has pointed out we are committed to a balanced budget, yet our projections to the municipalities are 4.5 per cent. When you look at the increase for administration, it’s something like 40 per cent. If there is an explanation for it, I would like to hear it at this point in time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m sure my friend has the book we supplied. The problem may be there aren’t enough copies of it for all the members of the opposition, but certainly your critics have the book.

On page 11, we outline the detail of the increases and decreases in the main office vote which, indeed, is 41.8 per cent over the $658,000 voted in last year’s estimates. It’s now $933,000. I’ll just go quickly over the differences.

Salary awards, of course, amount to $19,000. The next item is the transfer of the minister’s office staff from the Ministry of Education. This is really a technical matter but it does change the percentage here.

The new ministry was created out of TEIGA. In other words, one ministry was split off for two. As you know, the estimates of TEIGA were before the House last year and in preparing for two sets of estimates, one already being tabled in the House, all that was done was for those estimates to be cut in half. That meant in the main office vote, because the minister stayed in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, most of the main office, minister’s office, vote was left in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. There was hardly anything in the vote for the minister’s office in this new ministry.

That is corrected this year. It’s corrected by one of the minister’s office votes from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, that ministry being compacted into one and, therefore, only needing one minister-deputy minister’s operation. That money is now coming over into our ministry to account and give us money for a minister’s operation here. That’s $153,000 which, if the estimates hadn’t already been tabled last year, would have shown in last year’s estimates also.

[5:30]

What I’m saying is that to some degree we are seeing a large increase percentage-wise, but a false one, because in last year’s estimates there was no extensive amount of money for the operation of the minister’s office, and it should have been there.

There then was a $40,000 minus item, again resulting from the transfer of staff from Treasury and Economics to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. There was a $40,000 reduction. Then there were some small items. The $80,000 increase is due to the numerous federal-provincial and interprovincial conferences which were held last year. I guess we set some kind of record. Since this ministry was created in August 1978 there have been three federal-provincial conferences and three conferences of ministers on the constitution, which is a very heavy load’ and probably as many as we had in the three or four years before that.

There was an additional item of $45,000 connected with the services of the co-ordinator of French-language services, $11,000 for additional supplies and then several other minor items, all of them adding up to $275,000, which accounts for the 41 per cent increase in that particular vote.

Mr. Roy: Just to follow what my friend has said -- I thought it was an excellent question -- I take it that on the Ministry of Education side we should see a decrease of some $153,000. We’ll look closely at those estimates to see whether it corresponds. If there is an increase from what you said on the one hand, we should see a decrease on the other.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You won’t have any Minister of Colleges and Universities to talk with.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but we should see a decrease of money some place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. You will.

Mr. Roy: Considering that the co-ordinator of French-language services is in the main office, as I understand it, it’s not something I will be able to discuss under vote 602. I would like to ask the minister a question on this, although I don’t know if it’s fair in the absence of Mr. Stevenson, the deputy minister. In any event, one thing that has puzzled me is that in the co-ordination of French-language services last year, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we passed an amendment to the Judicature Act. Once something like this passes and the Legislature grants authority, I take it that the co-ordinator must be involved in the implementation of this legislation.

I’m starting to get troubled about this. I guess one of these days I’ll have to start talking more enthusiastically to your colleague the Attorney General.

Can the co-ordinator of French-language services advise us as to what is the delay in the implementation of the provisions of the Judicature Act? We realize that it has to be phased in and that you just couldn’t do this thing overnight. We in the opposition were quite reasonable about it. We understood this.

In an area like Ottawa-Carleton, the personnel exists to provide French-language courts. As you know, we have French-language service at the provincial level for summary conviction offences and we have it at the family courts to a limited extent as well. I understand we have it now in the small claims court. What is the delay in providing it for the whole realm of services in the courts in the criminal field, for instance? We have the judges and we have the personnel. What has been the delay there? What has been the delay in the county court, especially in Ottawa where we have three or four judges who are bilingual? What has been the holdup?

One of the provisions we have in the Judicature Act is that the pleadings would be in English, so actually it is the hearing that would be bilingual. We have the staff there. What has been the delay? I would like to know from the minister, through his coordinator of French-language services, what has been the holdup; why we are not proceeding faster?

I am becoming awfully suspicious there is not much reason for the delay. I understand it takes forms and it takes certain other things, but to me the delay is not justified here and I would like to get some explanation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry, I am going to have to tell my friend I shall have to find that out because I don’t know. My deputy minister might have had the answer. That act hasn’t been proclaimed yet, is that right? Has it been proclaimed?

Mr. Roy: I hope it has. It happened about a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will get the answer for that. I am sure the co-ordinator would have had the answer, or at least given me some indication about it if he had been here -- although I suspect he would have had to go back and try and find out too -- because he keeps very close tabs on what is going on. We believe that is moving ahead. I don’t think there is any problem in it. There may be some technical problems, but I will find out for you.

I am sorry the deputy minister is not here, incidentally. He had to go to a French-language seminar in Kapuskasing tonight, as part of the program he has been conducting as the co-ordinator of French-language services, along with the other people in the civil service. They have had eight seminars across the province where all the regional people in all our different ministries who are providing services in French have been coming together. They have been excellent meetings and it has helped immensely for all those people to know who is working in that area in other ministries. One is being held in Kapuskasing tonight and he is off to that.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I can understand that the information is not readily available, but I trust you will take this further through the co-ordinator or through yourself to your colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) -- I have not had occasion to speak to him about it. I have been patient and, God knows, if Franco-Ontarians have one thing, it’s patience. You know that.

I would convey to the Attorney General that I really think it is getting to the point where the delay is unjustified. I would hate to think the legislation we passed last year has yet to be proclaimed. That concerns me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It may be that I was wrong.

Mr. Roy: Yes. I would hope that someone comes back with something to justify the delay of a year, because I really don’t see it. Take an area like Prescott-Russell, for example, where 80 to 85 per cent of the people are French-speaking -- your judges, everyone down there is bilingual. What has been the delay in having indictable offence trials in the criminal court before Judge Cecile? Judge Cecile speaks French. You know him as one of your colleagues.

The county court judge is Judge Cusson, who is French-speaking as well. What is the problem, especially when we drafted the legislation specifically to have it brought in in stages in various areas of the province?

I trust you will convey to your colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), our concern because we are obviously going to have to start getting more high profile about this.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be happy to get you that information. When we continue with the estimates on Friday I will have that for you. I can tell you the Attorney General is concerned about this. Knowing him and knowing his concern and his real feeling for this piece of legislation, the only thing that would hold it up as far as he is concerned is some technical detail. He certainly wouldn’t be stalling on it. I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Roy: I hope not.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I can guarantee you that. I will find out for you.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions on the main office vote; one of them relates to comments which have already been made concerning the planning process.

As the minister has said, the white paper on planning that was introduced by his colleague recently suggests that more of the responsibility be passed to municipalities. On the assumption that that white paper is going to turn into legislation some time within the next few months and on the assumption of that basic precept that municipal government should exercise more responsibility in the planning area, I wonder what the minister sees as being his role and his ministry’s role in planning, given that planning is much more than housing. It’s also commercial and industrial development. It’s also parks. It’s also waterfront development. It’s also lifestyle and social services and all of these things.

I wonder whether the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is going to be playing a role in that -- and if so, what kind of role -- and whether we can expect that municipal government will be given complete autonomy. That’s a nice buzz-word these days, but I find it strange if the minister and the government are really suggesting that they are going to allow municipalities to do what they want, given that there are provincial guidelines in certain areas; given that municipalities already bicker among themselves for assessment dollars. Are we really going to see that kind of all-out petty war for development that goes on? Or is this ministry going to play a part in providing guidance in terms of the things that individual municipalities and particular areas of the province should be setting as development priorities and in terms of putting development restrictions on certain other areas that this government and more especially I hope, this House sees as being appropriate for the overall good of Ontario.

My second point relates to the whole matter of interaction with local government. I applaud the minister’s comments with regard to asking the municipalities to make proposals as to how to solve the problems. The difficulty with that approach -- and again it comes up with autonomy as the buzz-word -- is who are the “they” we are asking to solve the problems? Are they the incumbents in municipal government as it is structured at present? Are they the majority of people in a particular area, and if so what area? In other words, who is it that the minister listens to when he says he asks the people in the municipalities for advice and for comments about the problems that are facing them?

In that regard I would draw to the minister’s attention the bill he introduced very recently into this House with regard to a quorum problem in the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, which request for change was not initiated by the- council for the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, was not initiated by a majority of the councils, but was initiated by the chairman of that regional municipality and a few of the people with whom he associates.

Is this what the minister means by asking the municipalities to come forward with proposals -- that he listens to certain people and not to other people? Or are we to see a situation where change can only be made by incumbent councils? I suggest to the minister that is fraught with problems too and what we need is an approach that takes into account the aspirations of the people who live in the municipalities we have now and in certain areas that perhaps should be municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’d like to comment on the last point first. We could get into a very interesting philosophical discussion on the points the honourable member has raised, “Who do you listen to?”

Do I listen to him and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere when I want to know what’s happening in those ridings? Or do I go out and listen to the president of the local Tory organization? Or do I go out and listen to the --

Mr. Warner: I shouldn’t do that. You can listen to me; you can listen to the people.

[5:45]

Hon. Mr. Wells: I won’t answer that. Do I go out and listen to various ratepayers groups? I think it’s very difficult, as I say, to be able to draw some hard and fast guidelines, but I think that basically, operating particularly in this ministry interfacing with local government, we have to listen to the people who have been elected at the local level -- in other words, the mayors and the reeves and the councillors. We have to believe if they put forward positions that are wrong they are going to have to account for them to the people who elected them, and those of us down here will have to account for the decision. I guess that is how our democratic system of government works.

We all, of course, solicit opinions from other people in the area. If I get an opinion here from a local council it is no secret. I very often will talk to the member of this Legislature who comes from that area -- that doesn’t just mean if he is a member of my party, but your party or the official opposition -- and we will have a word about what is happening. The member may be the first person to talk to me about a particular situation and may alert me the municipality is going to be writing or asking for something. Basically I would say we listen to the people who have been elected in that area.

You have raised a very interesting example of this situation and I must say that was exactly what went through my mind when I thought about legislation for the Haldimand-Norfolk situation. Was I, in fact, being asked to do what one person wanted, or was I doing what the majority of the council wanted? You have indicated today I wasn’t doing what the majority of the council wanted; I believe I was.

I don’t know whether you have seen the letter -- did I send you a copy of the letter with the resolution? I believe Mr. Richardson, the chairman of Haldimand-Norfolk, wrote me and said at an informal caucus attended by, as I recall it, at least 14 or 16 people, the majority had asked and instructed him to write and ask for legislation in this regard. Quite obviously they were in a situation where they could not hold a formal, regularly-constituted meeting of the Haldimand-Norfolk council because they could not legally get the quorum. That was a problem they were facing, but it was my belief in that case that a majority of the council had asked for it. Therefore, I felt it was a situation on which we should introduce a bill into this Legislature.

Did I send you a copy of the letter with the bill when we brought it in?

Mr. Isaacs: No.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be glad to supply you with a copy of the letter from the chairman, which was the letter I acted upon. I am going from memory, but I believe that letter indicated an informal caucus would be meeting, and I certainly took from the letter and from any conversations I had there were more than two or three people at that informal caucus.

To answer your question, first and foremost we listen to the people who are elected and believe they are the ones who have the antennae out to sense the wishes of the people in their area. That goes all the way through talking to people about specific local legislation or problems right up to the Municipal Liaison Committee where the local people are elected to their provincial associations, provincial associations are represented on the Municipal Liaison Committee, and the Municipal Liaison Committee discusses legislation with us.

In this last round of legislation we have adopted a new policy where practically all the municipal legislation is looked at in detail by the Municipal Liaison Committee. They get a chance to look it over, to comment on it, to have their solicitors look at it, to raise problems with us, to tell us where there may be things we didn’t see, and there are things they disagree with. We may still put the legislation in, but at least they know where we stand and we know where they stand on particular sections.

The next question you asked was about our role in planning. Answered very simply, our ministry does have a role in planning, yes. In so far as overall planning policies are decided here, because we represent that ministry which is interfacing with local government and which has responsibility for about 55 acts that impinge upon local government, we, along with all the other ministries concerned, sit down together and talk about those things that have to do with local planning. As I said earlier, if the white paper is adopted and if the proposals suggested in the white paper, are implemented, planning is going to become more of a local process.

I know what the member is getting at. We don’t want to get back to the days of out-and-out competition between each area, which really is no planning at all. My friend from Scarborough-Ellesmere knows what that is all about and I know what it is all about, because we have to live with it on Eglinton Avenue, on Lawrence Avenue and all through the borough of Scarborough. I am not sure anything we could ever do down here could ever seem to stop that.

Mr. Warner: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No matter where we go we find that same kind of planning. I suppose the more disastrous thing is where there is such out-and-out competition for certain kinds of development that we find municipalities doing things they probably shouldn’t do and getting into financial problems they shouldn’t. We have to guard against that. It is a very fine line about local autonomy and where one starts to guard against that.

We had here overall provincial planning policies, growth centres, et cetera that were all mapped out. One would go out and talk to municipalities and their associations and they would say, “Are you telling us that all the growth should go here and we are never really to look for any growth or any development?” That kind of thing really depresses and stagnates a community.

I don’t think one can leave any community with that feeling in this province today. One has to give them some hope that in some way they are going to be able to keep moving ahead. I like to tell them they all should be looking for the kind of thing that will be indigenous to what is in the cards for them, but that is not always easy to do either.

I think the role the province still has to play is to set some general planning parameters, but to allow more at the local level without imposing a very rigid straitjacket from the province. That doesn’t give the member a complete answer because, until the discussion on the white paper is finished and we get all that back in, I don’t think we will be able to set the whole parameters as to how we are going to operate in the future. We as the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will be involved as part of the planning process and in committees of other ministries here.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister’s comments about involvement in the planning area. I have just one quick response to his comments about listening to the majority votes of local councils or regional councils or county councils or whatever the group might be that is making a presentation.

One major problem that concerns me is that through that mechanism the legitimate concerns of minorities within those municipalities can very easily be forgotten. Let’s take as an example a regional municipality -- and it doesn’t matter which one it is -- in which one or two of the lower-tier municipalities share a concern that is of no concern to the majority of the municipalities. The electorate in the one or two municipalities that are affected has no direct or indirect way of influencing the regional councillors they do elect. It may or may not be the situation in Haldimand-Norfolk. It is my sense that it is the situation in Hamilton-Wentworth at the present time. There is a little bit of that in Metropolitan Toronto at the moment. There are suggestions of it in Ottawa-Carleton.

This problem of one municipality wanting to do something, or even more likely not wanting to do something, that the other municipalities want to do is obscured when one listens to the majority votes of a regional council. I am really concerned as to how the minister makes a decision and comes to a conclusion on some of these fundamental problems facing regions and facing areas that may at some time become regions, when it is a small part of the total geographic area that is expressing a concern.

Does one override the wishes of the minority in order to satisfy the majority? Does one allow annexations by cities because the majorities always live in the cities and only a very few people live in the suburban or rural areas surrounding those cities? Or does one somehow weigh the votes over the people or councillors from an area in order to give the minority some strong voice in the overall direction of their community?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As my friend was speaking, I was just thinking to some degree that’s probably the reason we don’t enact some of the requests officially sent in by regions for amendments to their legislation. When we look at the various material that comes in to us, we realize to do what you said, protect one or two of the municipalities in the minority, that kind of request wouldn’t be appropriate.

I would be very interested in getting the background from that licensing situation you alluded to in Hamilton-Wentworth. I can’t remember the details of it, but perhaps that’s the kind of thing that is present there. Either the minority wants something the majority doesn’t want, or the majority wants something the minority doesn’t want.

I am sure that’s one of the reasons we don’t always immediately enact into legislation all the requests a region sends in to us and asks for.

Mr. G. I. Miller: To follow up on the minister’s statement regarding Bill 95, which was introduced a few weeks ago -- I don’t know whether the date is on the bill or not, but I can’t see it -- it does affect the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, particularly my riding. There was serious concern at that time, but now the councils have returned to work and seem to be proceeding with their regular business, I wonder if the minister is going to continue bringing this bill forward?

It is my understanding the council would like to make some further changes and recommendations. As has been pointed out by my colleague from Wentworth, it wasn’t brought forth by the council as a whole but was done by a recommendation of a majority.

In this connection, I agree with the minister’s comments. I wonder if he would reconsider and let the council deal with it and make the recommendations they feel would be most satisfactory for that particular area?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be most happy to do that, if my friend, as the local member, will find out the changes they would like, or get the council to let me know. I think there is perhaps need to bring forward some kind of bill, but certainly if there are some changes they would like, I would like to hear from them about those changes.

I think I had a further letter from the chairman saying the problem which caused us to consider bringing forward the bill had now been alleviated and overcome, but they still felt there was merit in bringing the bill forward.

I would like to have council write us officially and tell us some of the changes they would like so we can proceed. I would like to hear what the member for the area would like to recommend on that bill.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I will certainly try to get that information for you. Thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. Cunningham: The minister would be aware, I am sure, that at least the regional aspect of municipal taxes in Hamilton-Went- worth will be increasing by roughly 28 per cent. That, of course, will be added to the education aspect and whatever levy will come from the local municipalities.

I think that increase in itself, will spark some renewed interest on the part of people within the Hamilton-Wentworth region to see some re-evaluation at the very minimum of that current structural setup. As the new member for Wentworth expressed, there are some concerns, especially in the smaller municipalities, with the continuing inequities that exist within that system. Some areas are being subjected to things they don’t particularly want. Glanbrook dump, in a microcosmic sense, is the best example of the structural difficulties that exist in that area.

There are many more examples I can offer to you, Mr. Minister. There are the difficulties we are having in the township of Flamboro, where I reside, in seeing we get water up to Clappisons Corners at the junction of highways 5 and 6, which would be a natural area for some industrial expansion. We dearly need some industrial assessment in that township. The imbalance is unhealthy, to say the least.

I would like to ask the minister what kind of consideration he has been giving to see that some restructuring is done with a view to returning powers to local municipalities. I think this problem, created by your government, cannot be allowed to fester much more.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In regard to what my friend is saying -- he is talking about restructuring in the Hamilton-Wentworth area -- we had a very extensive study in that area. He has seen the results of the study.

Mr. Cunningham: Not particularly good.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I agree, it probably hasn’t been -- I don’t know, I’m not going to say whether it’s been particularly good or whether it hasn’t been particularly good, but it hasn’t prompted us to come forward with any restructuring and I’m not thinking of any restructuring in the area.

The problem of financing, I would suggest, is another one. I would hope maybe the local government could take a look at that. We always feel that somehow restructuring is a cause for increased cost, but I just want to read you something. It says here, “Contrary to the opinions held by many residents of the region of Waterloo, the cost of local government has not increased substantially faster than it would have under the former system. Second, it is no more expensive in comparison with similar areas inside or outside regional governments. Third, after four years of regional government the average per household property tax is lower in real dollars than it was four years prior to regional government.”

That’s in the Palmer report. I’m not as familiar with some of the other reports but I know in the Palmer report they developed, at a great deal of expense, systems and criteria for measuring the costs so they could come up with some statements like that. That material is all there. We have access to it in our ministry. If the people in Hamilton-Wentworth would like to take some of that material and use it to see if the costs would have been greater if they had not been part of the restructured municipality, I think it would be a very good exercise. We would be happy to co-operate with them to make that material available. They would have to take the initiative if they want to do it.

Item 1 agreed to.

Item 2 agreed to.

Vote 001 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.