The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members that seated in our gallery are members of the rules committee of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, led by their chairman, the Speaker of the Saskatchewan House, the Honourable John Brockelbank.

I would also like to draw to the attention of all honourable members the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Dr. Herbert Guenther, Minister of Justice for the state of Hessell in Germany. Would you welcome him?

TRIBUTES TO NIXON FAMILY

Mr. Speaker: May I also draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished citizen of Ontario in the person of Mrs. Alice Nixon. It was my pleasure to entertain Mrs. Nixon and her family at a luncheon today on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the first election of the late Harry Nixon, former Premier of Ontario. Please welcome her to the House today.

Applause.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to salute Mrs. Nixon and the Nixon family on this auspicious occasion. I did some reading about the former Premier of Ontario, Harry Nixon. Every reference to him is as a man of very good sense, a man of the people, a man of common sense, a down-to-earth individual, and refers to his rock-hard honesty. I may say, without being in any way political about that, that those same features have marked the dedication of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, the former Leader of the Opposition.

I think it must be obvious to everyone that after many years as Leader of the Opposition the member to my left has rededicated himself to a very difficult and time-consuming role as House leader for the official opposition. Certainly to me, he has been not only a source of very genuine inspiration but of tremendous personal help and advice. I salute the family. I salute Mrs. Nixon.

I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) has often said that he wished the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk were still the Leader of the Opposition. I confess to the Premier that that opinion was also shared by others in the House. I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are times I too would prefer to see the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk as Leader of the Opposition, but we accept our roles willingly.

All of us feel that Ontario is a better place because a family like the Nixon family has dedicated itself to parliamentary democracy and to helping people. It’s an honour to serve in the same House where they have made such a tremendous contribution over the years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join with the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the Nixon family. I don’t recall exactly what I said in the discussions here on occasion. I’m really not sure that I said I wished the former Leader of the Opposition were still the Leader of the Opposition because on a very objective analysis I’m not sure that I really would wish he were still Leader of the Opposition.

I’d like to pay tribute, leaving that aspect of it aside, to a family really that has made a major contribution to the political life of this province now for six decades. I know that the former Leader of the Opposition, the present member, is in the process of reducing some of this into an historical and, I assume, objective context. I think this work will be very beneficial to the people of this province and is one of those works that might ultimately find its way on to Circular 14 or 15 or whatever that circular is that determines what books get into the school system. I wish him well in those endeavours. We’ll all look forward to reading the results of his work.

With you, Mr. Speaker, it’s a great honour to have Mrs. Harry Nixon -- or Alice Nixon as I was introduced to her at lunch -- in your gallery. She has made many contributions to the people of this province as the wife of a former member and a former Premier, as mother of the former Leader of the Opposition, and as a grandmother of a family where I think people on this side of the House would almost welcome the potential of that continuation. I say “almost”; that would probably make it very difficult for us to win that riding.

Mrs. Nixon, as she shared with us at lunch, knew the delights that come in political life and the sorrows that also come to those of us who share these responsibilities. As she pointed out -- something I tried to say not nearly so well as she said to us -- the real motivation, I think, for all of us in politics is not the “big issues,” but the ability to serve people. This, she in her own way has done, not just as the wife of Mr. Harry Nixon but just as importantly in her own right.

I expect she offered a great deal of guidance to the former member. The present member, I am sure, received a lot of guidance, and maybe he didn’t accept all of it. I expect Mrs. Nixon would be ready to give some guidance to her grandchildren if they were ever to make that sort of decision, and probably also her vote.

I have something in common with the Nixon family on this occasion, only in a traditional sense. Mr. Harry Nixon was elected to this Legislature -- I think I am right in this -- in the same year my predecessor in office, Mr. Tom Kennedy, was elected as the member for Peel. I think he was elected in the same election in 1919. He served this House, and I think I can say this without disturbing any of the reportings of history, that Harry Nixon and Tom Kennedy were, in fact, good friends, political adversaries, but none the less good friends.

They shared their responsibilities for almost the same period of time, except for one modest aberration in Peel in the 1930s when I believe a Duncan Marshall defeated Tom Kennedy, who bounced back shortly thereafter and continued to represent Peel until 1959.

I personally had, as did few other members in this House, the honour to serve with the late Harry Nixon. I can recall very clearly sitting across the House, not too far distant from where the son of that distinguished Ontario citizen is sitting, and listening to his advice and counsel to the government of the day, which the government accepted in the constructive sense in which it was given while not necessarily accepting the advice contained in the suggestions.

The very distinguished present member came into the House roughly two years after I became the member for Peel. Tom Kennedy was our Premier for a brief period, and if my memory is correct, about three percentage points separated the former Leader of the Opposition from the responsibilities of being Premier of this province.

I don’t say that with regret; but I do say to the present member he has maintained, and I say this very sincerely and objectively, the very high standards established by his late father. He has maintained the values and principles that were those of his community, and in many respects his father reminded me a little bit of my own late father in terms of their feelings about the smaller communities and the values and traditions that existed.

On behalf of the government of this province and on behalf of my colleagues in our own caucus, I extend to Mrs. Nixon Senior our very sincere best wishes, our thanks for what she has done in her way over these many years for her family and for the public, and say to the son of the former Premier and member that we extend to him our best wishes, although they may not translate themselves into the same political terms whenever he decides once again to contest that seat. But most sincerely I express on behalf of all of us our sincere best wishes to the Nixon family on this occasion.

[2:15]

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to join in the expression of good wishes both to Mrs. Harry Nixon, and also to the Nixon family, on this 60th anniversary of their establishing a political dynasty in the county of Brant. It’s a tribute not just to political longevity but also to the traditions of service which I know Bob Nixon has carried on from his father.

I understand with some misgivings that Bob Nixon’s son, John, is now established in St. George and is of an age and station where perhaps in a few years time he too will be considering carrying this on. With the Premier, I’m not entirely sure whether that is an outcome devoutly to be wished on the part of all parties. I would prefer to look back and say this family has served the province of Ontario with distinction, with dedication, and has been an example and a model of public service and of dedication to public life for many years.

It is interesting to think back to 1919 and the election of the United Farmers government in this province. One’s mind is full of certain what-might-have-beens because of the fact Ontario’s political history took a step in a direction which it was then to turn away from, and which I would perhaps like to see it re-embark upon at some time in the future. The Liberal-Labour member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has perhaps carried some traditions from those days.

I would like to think as well that back in 1943 when Harry Nixon was the Premier of this province there was a tradition that the governing party in Ontario did change from time to time, rather than simply staying in the hands of one political party. I, for one, think as part of our commitment to the democratic ideal in this province we should seek to re-establish those traditions of changing the governing party from time to time.

I want to reiterate to Mrs. Nixon our pleasure at the fact she could be here today on the 60th anniversary of her husband’s election to this House. Our thanks to her and to her family for their service to Ontario over these many decades.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, that’s the last time they’ll all applaud.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, no. You will at the 75th anniversary too.

Mr. Speaker, I know how anxious you are to proceed with question period, but I felt under the circumstances I wanted to thank you and my legislative colleagues on all sides of the House for their kindness and good wishes. I’m sure also you will understand why, with continuous representation in Brant constituency -- Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, as it is now known -- for 30 years without a break, it is not often when I’m at home that I say it’s time for a change. However, I have been known to use that phrase elsewhere.

The Leader of the NDP has brought to our attention the quaint notion that sometimes in Ontario’s past governments did change, and it is something earnestly to be desired. I was glad to see the Premier applauded his remarks. We’ll just see how sincere he is in that respect.

I should say particularly, on behalf of my mother, who will be 90 in a few months, that she has followed with a great deal of interest the proceedings in this chamber. When she and my father first came into this building, both of them for the very first time, it was after he had been sworn in as a minister at Chorley Park, which was where His Honour in those days kept his abode and issued his proclamations in the name of His Majesty, strange as those terms may seem.

Actually, my mother, coming in as the wife of a cabinet minister, occupied an apartment in the east wing directly under the office of the Premier. My sister, who is in the gallery, was a baby at the time and my dad often said that it was because his campaign pictures showed him carrying this beautiful baby, actually without a hair on her head but beautiful in every other way, that he was able to win his first election. But things have changed mightily in these 60 years.

I should say something that might be of interest to all of us as members. When he became the leader of the party, the government party of 1943, one of his basic commitments was that there should be an election forthwith because the members of the House, at that time, had extended the tenure of the House twice beyond the legal limit. I just bring that to the attention of fellow members, in case they have some interesting ideas for the future, because it’s actually cheaper to do that than have an election.

When the election was called -- I don’t believe George Gallup was making predictions in those times -- most of the editorialists thought the government party would be returned, perhaps with a reduced majority, but in the event, the Liberals found themselves a reduced rump -- there’s no other word for it -- over here. The then CCF was the official opposition and George Drew was the Prime Minister, as he called it, by a handful of votes. It was not even that; it was about one vote and a half.

He proceeded immediately to rearrange the seats in the chamber back into the traditional configurations of Westminster. Before that, during the nine Liberal years, we had one of those semicircular affairs because we didn’t have the advantage of one of these excellent public address systems that the taxpayers have provided for us. It was only by dint of lung power and persistence that a debater could make himself heard in this chamber.

You know how, Mr. Speaker, if something happens to our public address system and it’s not working, we are completely at a loss to continue business. So it shows the way, perhaps, that the strength of the parliamentarians has changed over those years.

There have been many changes, and during all these years the good people of Brant, with parts of Oxford and parts of Norfolk, have seen fit in their wisdom to return my father and me to this House. We feel we have served them as competently as we could possibly do, and always with the feeling that there is nothing like a dynasty. Always, it is in the hands of the electorate.

I want to close by making a comment to the leader of the NDP. He indicated I had a son, John, who was farming, but I also have two daughters. It’s not often that the leader of the NDP is upstaged by what might be called by oversensitive people a sort of sexist statement. However, there is practically an army of them there waiting to carry on. I’m not sure their interest and bent directs them in this direction. Frankly, I hope it does because I have found the life of the service hero to be fulfilling, interesting, sometimes amusing and always fraught with, I suppose, a kind of pressure and also goodwill that make life worth living. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could I add a 30-second footnote? I think all members of the House should be aware and forewarned that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is writing the history of the last 50 years as viewed from the Liberal concept of truth, honesty and everything else. Just beware; he tells me it may be available by 1984 or 1985, perhaps earlier. Quiver in your seats meantime.

Mr. Rotenberg: We’re not worrying.

OTTAWA MEETING

Mr. Laughren: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if you would agree with me that in view of the very important meeting that took place in Ottawa towards the end of last week between our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and their federal counterparts in Ottawa we could expect a statement today on the results of that meeting, in view of the rather serious problems we’re faced with concerning interest rates and oil pricing, which have a great deal to do with the people they met with in Ottawa.

Mr. Nixon: Your leader could ask a question about that.

Mr. Speaker: There will be an opportunity in question period.

Mr. S. Smith: That goodwill lasted quite a long time. I thought I would have the honour of breaking that atmosphere with my first question, but unfortunately it’s been taken by someone else.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to address a question to the Premier, arising out of Prime Minister Clark’s press conference last Friday at which the Prime Minister rejected -- I guess that would be a moderate word; some would use stronger words -- the Premier’s insistence that an oil pricing decision must await the first ministers’ conference in December.

In light of this development, is the Premier now prepared to look more favourably on the suggestion made by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) that the Legislature pointedly and formally declare its opposition to the proposed oil price hike we’re hearing about and which the federal government intends?

If the Premier has some reservations about the wording of the resolution suggested by the member for Kitchener, I would be glad to entertain a resolution that he might wish to word for the House, provided all parties could find it acceptable. Then the Legislature could go on record and make very clear to the federal government what our opinion is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I said to the member for Kitchener on Friday, I have no knowledge as to what difference has been created, if any, because of the Prime Minister’s press conference on Friday. I really thought we had debated the question -- which I received notice of, incidentally, but about two minutes before the question was asked. I thought we had heard the views of the members opposite.

As I pointed out to the member for Kitchener, I think on this whole question there are different aspects in the points of view of the New Democratic Party, a fairly new point of view from the Liberal Party, and of course the position that we have put very forcibly to the government of Canada. Hopefully there is no doubt in the government of Canada’s mind -- I can assure them there isn’t -- as to the point of view of the government of this province.

While I’m never reluctant to have a further debate if there’s something more that can be added, I am having the contributions of all members assessed in terms of adding anything to the representations we have made. But I think no practical purpose would be served by having a resolution when the views of the government are, I think, very well known to the government of Canada.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Although the views of the government may be well known to the Prime Minister of this country, the Prime Minister seems to be rejecting those views. Why would the Premier not seek and welcome the support of this House for a nonpartisan resolution, on the elements of which I’m sure we can find some agreement?

Why would the Premier not welcome this opportunity to make very plain to the government of Canada that the opinions being expressed by the government of Ontario and at present being rejected by the government of Canada would then take on much greater strength once they were in the form of a resolution which we could all agree to?

Why would he not want the support of this Legislature, not for the purpose of further debate, but to make sure we’re protected from this recessionary, inflationary and -- in our view and in your view -- unnecessary oil price increase?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, from a practical standpoint I really think the government of Canada is very aware of the point of view.

I think it’s very premature for the Leader of the Opposition to say the government of Canada has rejected the Ontario point of view.

The Prime Minister of Canada is faced with several conflicting points of view. He is faced with the requests from the producing provinces, something they have had for several years now, to have world price for oil. This request has been there since 1973-74, it is a point of view which, in many respects, was supported by the official opposition in this province, and I really sense from the member for London Centre that philosophically, probably --

Mr. Peterson: You are in no position to judge my philosophy. You don’t have any of your own.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. I am just saying it was the member for London Centre’s point of view.

Mr. S. Smith: It never was at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just see what I read.

Mr. Epp: And it is written by your staff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who wrote your latest paper?

Mr. Epp: I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Waterloo North did. I am sure he did. I am not sure he should want to claim authorship.

I would say further to the leader of the Liberal Party that while the Prime Minister is faced with the point of view, as expressed very vigorously by the producing provinces, of world price, he has the point of view by this province that we should be less than world price or the Chicago price. We do not see the need to move to world price in terms of what has been suggested in some quarters.

I would also point out, as I recall chronologically, there were suggestions emanating from the producing provinces, also from some ministers. In fact, one reason the paper was released in August is we felt the potential of having prices adjusted even in midyear, that is this past September.

So I think it is fair to state our point has had some impact. At least there has been no adjustment in price up until this moment.

An hon. member: Come on, be serious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the honourable member, every week that goes by and there isn’t an upward adjustment, we are talking millions of dollars. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars because of the position Ontario took in 1974 when the producing provinces wanted to go to world price and when the then government of Canada was well on its way. If it hadn’t been for the intervention from here, it might have happened several years ago. This government has saved the people of this province hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Cassidy: Since there seems to be some confusion arising out of the statements by the federal Prime Minister over the timing of any decision about the oil price increase, can the Premier say whether his colleagues, in their visit last week, or he, in his contacts with the Prime Minister, have in fact succeeded in getting a commitment that no increase in oil prices or no decision about petroleum price increases will be taken until after the first ministers’ conference in December?

Can the Premier say whether the federal government has agreed not to proceed with the destructive and disastrous increases in prices which were being rumoured last week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only go by press reports.

Mr. Martel: Did you talk to him? Don’t you talk to that fellow in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: You used to belittle the Liberals when they were in power.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I find it so hard to ignore that distinguished member. Well, I don’t really.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I learned as a result of discussions in Ottawa last week that would lead me to believe a decision would be made prior to the first ministers’ meeting. I sent a very direct response to the press report to the Prime Minister making it clear I felt it was necessary to have the first ministers’ meeting prior to a decision on the pricing part of the energy debate.

I notice once again in the press that Mr. Clark himself suggested a gasoline price of the figure of $1.37 per gallon, or whatever it was, was not what he was contemplating.

I can’t answer for that because once again it was just a press report.

The information I have as a result of the discussions last week would not lead me to believe any decision has been made. We are urging it be discussed at the first ministers’ meeting prior to any finality to the question of pricing.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier in his last response has tried to say the Ontario position was, and I quote from the Premier as best as I can remember it now because has just finished speaking, “something other than world price, something below the Chicago price.” I believe that is what the Premier just said. He wants to take some credit for the fact that the rumoured increases are in that realm.

Since when was it Ontario’s position that as long as it is below world price and below the Chicago price the government could take credit for that and feel that was a great achievement? Since when did the Premier’s position change from the so-called “no increase beyond $1” in January?

Mr. Warner: It was one of the Liberal positions.

Mr. S. Smith: Why doesn’t he admit the fact that he is being roundly defeated in his efforts on behalf of Ontario and that perhaps getting the Legislature to pass the resolution, although it doesn’t guarantee success, would be a lot stronger than the position he has so far been able to carry on our behalf?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really don’t know what the Leader of the Opposition was hearing. There has been no alteration in our position. There is an agreement in effect. That agreement includes a price increase of $1 on January 1. Our point of view on that has not altered.

I am saying I have taken the position for some time, prior to this latest debate, that whatever is ultimately determined -- in spite of what some provinces, some economists and some people in the business community argue, and in spite of the inevitability of the position that the Leader of the Opposition’s party has always maintained -- we should retain that competitive edge and should never accept the principle of world price.

Mr. S. Smith: You are not telling the truth; we never said it was inevitable.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member accepted it in his paper. He said when it became inevitable we would have to adjust to it. I am taking the point of view that it doesn’t have to become inevitable at all. We can be self-sufficient in energy in this country and we don’t ever need to go to world price.

Mr. S. Smith: When we have only imports, then we have to pay world price, and the Premier knows it. Tar sands will be close to world price.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We won’t reach the point of only having imports.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can’t hear the question.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: While the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition solve the problem of who altered his position -- and I think that both of them did -- in view of the fact that there will be a price increase in oil and that today there was a report that each household will pay $180 more for heating oil, is this government considering subsidizing senior citizens for the major cost, in view of the failure of this government to meet the commitment it made before the past election that it was going to reduce or eliminate property taxes on education?

Mr. Speaker: The latter part of that question is not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will deal with the latter part on some other occasion. I would urge the member for Downsview to read very carefully the paper we presented. We made two or three points in which we set out statistically better than perhaps any other jurisdiction, including the government of Canada, just what was implicit in terms of oil price increases. We also made the point, and please read the paper --

Mr. di Santo: I did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the honourable member did read the paper, he will find one of the suggestions we made was that we very strongly advocated that before any decision was made on any increase in oil price, programs should be in place relating to home heating oil with respect to those people on fixed incomes. It is there in black and white. He should read it and then ask the question again.

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry).

Is the minister aware that two more innocent young people have been killed violently in a car crash as a consequence of a high-speed police chase in an effort which police in Port Colborne were making to apprehend a 15-year-old juvenile who was at the wheel of a stolen car?

I ask the provincial secretary whether he is aware of this incident and whether after years and years of debate and requests in this House we are finally going to get a clear and consistent policy, which is understood by all law enforcement officers, that such chases are simply not to occur. Can he tell us what his view is of this matter and what he will promise to bring before the House to remedy this situation which has now claimed the lives of two innocent young people?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of the very unfortunate incident at Port Colborne over the weekend and I know that the Solicitor General is. He is at the moment at a constitutional conference in Halifax in his other responsibility as Attorney General. I do know as well that the Solicitor General’s ministry has asked for additional information from the Niagara regional police department. I anticipate the member will hear in due course any views the Solicitor General may wish to offer at that time. I know it’s uppermost in his mind.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I know this matter was raised many times before I was ever elected to this House, but I also know that as a consequence of questions from both this party and the New Democratic Party back in March and April 1976 and in the succeeding years, there have been repeated promises from the Solicitor General’s ministry that guidelines would be issued for all police forces and would be enforced.

Where are those guidelines? What do they look like? Who has them and what means of enforcement occurs, since the promise was made some three years ago?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I know that’s the kind of question the Solicitor General would want to share with the Leader of the Opposition. I will leave that until his return.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the minister can get off that easily. His is the secretariat for Justice policy. As a member of this assembly, I understand there were policy guidelines set down with regard to high-speed chases. I would like to know where those guidelines are. I would like to know if he is going to table those guidelines. I understand the Provincial Secretary for Justice is the person responsible for those guidelines. Will the honourable minister table them?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think the answer to this question is identical to the one given the Leader of the Opposition: the Solicitor General will share whatever information he has with members in the fullness of time.

Mr. Lupusella: I guess the main problem is the teaching techniques the police officers are receiving at the Ontario Police College. Will the minister convey his concern to the Solicitor General to make an overall review of the teaching techniques taking place at the Ontario Police College as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I will raise with the Solicitor General the concerns the member for Dovercourt has raised.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about health cutbacks. Is the Minister of Health aware that having had no reply to its appeal for funds six weeks ago the Willett Hospital in Paris has decided to close 13 chronic-care beds from now until March 31? Is he aware the hospital has had to try, with great difficulty, to find some place in the community to put those patients in order to save money because it has not received sufficient funding to continue to operate those beds? What action does the ministry intend to take?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that to ensure this is not another St. Joseph’s Hospital, Blind River, type of allegation on the part of the leader of the third party. The area planning coordinator for the ministry has been in that area repeatedly in the last few weeks dealing with all of the hospitals and the health councils who are reviewing the longer-range plans for hospital services in that area. I will take his question as notice and return with the facts tomorrow.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the facts we have come from the administrator of the Willett Hospital, is the minister not aware there were an additional 12 patients on the waiting list for those chronic-care beds which are about to be closed? Is he not aware that in addition, there are two patients in active-treatment beds at that hospital who should be moved into chronic-care beds? Given the obvious need for those beds, can the minister explain why it is the government has waited six weeks while an appeal was on the minister’s or the ministry’s desk and not given a response that could allow that essential care to he continued in the community of Paris?

Mr. Swart: Skate around it again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, all appeals are reviewed initially by the area teams within the ministry. When budget letters went out many months ago, all hospitals were told they should not make major changes in their programs without notifying the ministry, and that in particular we did not want to see changes in the areas of outpatient care and chronic care.

As I said, I will investigate and return here tomorrow with the facts to answer the allegations.

Mr. Nixon: The Willett Hospital referred to is in my constituency and the minister’s colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), will recall the hospital well since he drove up there and closed it one time -- but it didn’t stay closed. Is the minister aware the rationalization committee of the health council in Brant county is proposing a very large expansion of the chronic-care facilities there, but at the same time removing all of the active treatment facilities?

[2:45]

Doesn’t it worry the minister that this sort of a change affecting the community of Paris, which was attempted by his colleague in his previous incarnation as Minister of Health -- it was attempted and was a failure at that time -- is now going forward under another guise and that the community may very well be left with lots of chronic care but not sufficient active-treatment care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: One of the key elements involved in the review of hospital services in the whole of Brant county and the discussions among the five facilities in the county is the question of what is medically appropriate. As the member knows, the Brant County Medical Society has been actively involved in that rationalization review right from the beginning.

I met with the chairmen, or chairpersons if you prefer, of the health councils in that part of the province last week, and I am led to believe that in fact that number three rationalization study has been approved in principle by the board of the Willett Hospital, so I am confident that whatever comes out of the review by the Brant County District Health Council will have a very strong medical input and be along the lines of what is medically appropriate.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The minister has taken the question as notice. It is obvious he doesn’t have a detailed answer --

An hon. member: He doesn’t have any answer.

Mr. Makarchuk: Doctors are against it.

Mr. Speaker: -- but there will be an opportunity for further supplementaries when the minister brings in a detailed answer.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORPORATION

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Treasurer. Since the Treasurer told this House last week that the Ontario Energy Corporation has been stripped of the proceeds of the Syncrude sale in order to help finance the Employment Development Fund, can the Treasurer explain how that move is justified, since the Employment Development Fund to date has spent only $5.5 million on grants in manufacturing, whereas the money taken from the energy corporation amounts to $120 million?

Mr. Martel: Are you juggling the books?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The language “was stripped” I believe is the honourable member’s at any point in time, not mine. Let’s have that on the record.

I explained that what happened was the Ontario Energy Corporation paid back to the consolidated revenue fund approximately $105 million plus accrued interest to the fund, and left the rest of the money, the profits, invested in the Ontario Energy Corporation for worthwhile energy projects such as the experiment on the agrifarms, such as solar energy, such as many other experiments that are going to be going on in this province, finding the alternatives to crude oil as an energy source.

The moneys that are shown in public as commitments to the Employment Development Fund usually lag to some degree behind the actual commitments, because there is a process through which the money is allocated. I can only say that of the $165 million currently in the Employment Development Fund for the year, I can safely say the odds are it would be overdrawn rather than underdrawn.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since a government press release today states that the Employment Development Fund has given out only $5.53 million to the general manufacturing sector, and that is in a period of seven months since this fund was established, doesn’t the Treasurer agree that it would have made more sense to have left that $120 million in the Ontario Energy Corporation so the energy corporation could have taken a lead in putting equity investments into energy-saving projects and the projects to establish alternative forms of energy here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: This in no way prevents this government from making priority decisions as worthwhile investments come up in the energy field. The fact is that in this current year we felt we had at least one major industry, for example, the pulp and paper industry, plus the industrial sector, in great need of help because of unemployment difficulties. Again, I repeat what I said last week: if there was any group within this House that continued to make a lot of sound about that, the member’s group did. We have continued to act, I would say, with great success. I hear ads almost daily saying 30,000 new industrial jobs, 31,000 new industrial jobs.

We obviously have made commitments to companies that as yet are not announced. The Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) makes these as they are finalized. I can assure the member a lot are under way in the pulp and paper industry alone. The Ford deal alone is $28 billion. So you’re talking about a $5 million loan -- the Ford deal comes out of the EDF.

Mr. J. Reed: Does the minister not agree that the money channelled through the Ontario Energy Corporation is the correct vehicle to stimulate job creation in this province, understanding that we are importing $5 billion a year of energy into this province? Every single dollar we can recreate inside this province and contribute to Canada’s energy self-sufficiency is to our direct advantage. The Ontario Energy Corporation can be a major vehicle in this regard.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, it’s not either/or. I’d like to think that the billions of dollars the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) talked about in the phase two of the energy program relate to investments which will have to be made in this province and, of course, will create employment.

I believe the targets for indigenous energy sources have been set up by the Ministry of Energy so that we will depend less on external sources as time goes on. But the member knows as the energy critic -- I believe he is the energy critic, isn’t he?

Mr. J. Reed: That’s right.

Mr. Kerrio: You’re making it awfully easy for us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are heavily dependent upon crude oil and natural gas yet and are going to be for years.

Mr. J. Reed: Until you get off the tar sands.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would suggest that the Ontario paper clearly spelled out how we will have to work with the rest of Canada. We can’t create tar sands in Ontario. We can make electricity.

Mr. S. Smith: You are going to drive with a long cord.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Since the minister says that the Ontario Energy Corporation’s money, which could have been used for creating jobs in the energy sector, has been moved over to create jobs through the Employment Development Fund, can this House have an assurance that with the grant to Westinghouse for the plants in Renfrew announced today there has been a commitment made by the Westinghouse Corporation that they will not take away the 700 jobs which are now threatened at the switchgear plant in Hamilton?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I find it difficult to extend the original question to that supplementary.

ENERGY COSTS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that involves both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Revenue.

In the light of the increasing cost of energy and the horrendous increases that will be coming in the future and in light of the fact that many senior citizens, individuals on community and social service benefits and old-age security, people on low income and low-wage earners will be unable to pay these increases, is the minister prepared to provide an energy supplement at this time to the many different classes of citizens I have mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure the honourable member is aware, the policy for some time in my ministry with respect to energy costs as they relate to home heating has been that we will in fact pay the actual costs for all of those who are in receipt of benefits from the ministry. Within the past year we have changed that program so these persons can, in fact, receive payment in full with only a one month lag. Whereas previously there was a year-end catch up, we now have it so that there is a one-month lag.

There may be, in some circumstances, a slightly increased time lag if we’re late in getting the receipts. But the policy is that we will pick up actual costs.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as that question involves both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Revenue, could I ask the Minister of Revenue to also reply as to whether he is developing in the GAINS program an energy supplement so our senior citizens won’t come to a point where it’s either heat or eat?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, our ministry is not developing that particular program at all. If it was going to be developed, it would be developed by Treasury, rather than the Ministry of Revenue.

Mr. McClellan: Is the minister not aware, despite what he said with respect to the way his ministry pays heating costs, that no allowance can exceed the maximum as set out in the Family Benefits Act, so the money simply comes out of the food budget or out of the rent budget?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. As I told the member, there is a special program in which there is an allowance for supplemental assistance in paying heating costs where the recipient is responsible for those heating costs. We do pay the actual amounts. I wish the member would pay a little closer attention to the policies of my ministry, since he is the critic.

Mr. Martel: Ask your staff.

Mr. Gaunt: I should ask the minister if he is not aware of certain cases of GAINS recipients who have sent in the actual receipts for heating costs for the previous year and those costs have not been paid? The ministry has said because the level of payment is at a certain point the ministry will not be responsible for those additional heating costs.

I can get the files for the minister if he wants them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would be quite happy to check into any individual cases the member is aware of, because that is not consistent with the policy of the ministry.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’ve got some on your desk already.

Mr. Swart: How can the ministry say the payments are keeping up with the increase in those kinds of costs when during the last three years the percentage increase to the average recipient has gone up only 15 per cent, whether that’s welfare or family benefits -- in that neighbourhood -- and the cost of living has gone up 28 per cent? How does he relate those two?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the member is referring to. We are talking here about the provision for increasing energy costs. I think the member is expanding that to include --

Mr. Swart: It’s all part of the cost.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, but this is separate. We are not referring to the energy component or the heating component of the regular allowance; we are talking about supplemental assistance.

Mr. Martel: Right. That’s what we’re talking about.

CHICKEN IMPORTS

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He has been neglected for too long.

My first question to the minister is, since his kissing cousin in Ottawa last Friday authorized the import of chickens to the extent of 48 million pounds for 1980 and 52 million pounds for 1981, thereby placing in the hands of the two major importers, Maple Lodge Farms and Loblaws, control over price and undercutting totally the effectiveness of the marketing board, what is the minister going to do about it?

Secondly, in relation to imports, what is the minister going to do? I have to ask a question about the citizenship of chickens. Since, when a shopper goes into a store, it is not possible for him to discover whether or not it is a native-born chicken or an immigrant from the United States --

Mr. Peterson: Check his passport.

Mr. MacDonald: -- don’t you think it is time, in keeping with the government’s buy-Ontario program, that there should be some designation of the origin of the product so the shopper could give preference, as the minister is seeking to have them do, to Ontario products, and so we don’t have ads like this, which says, “fresh chickens,” with no identification at all? For other products, for example, it says at the bottom, “California tomatoes,” or “produce of Central America” for bananas, or “US produce” for head lettuce, but there is no identification for chickens at all. There is no clarification as to their citizenship. What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is well aware I have had the opportunity of meeting with the chicken producers on two different occasions, respecting the problem he has brought up here today.

Mr. T. P. Reid: All they got was feathers.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If the member would look back over the history of the imports, he would note the Minister of Agriculture for Canada has put forth a proposal that at least limits future imports. We could not get that before. We now have a limit on the imports, a limit that is less than the present imports by quite a few pounds. I can quote the figures if the member wants. But it is less --

Mr. Martel: Go ahead. Come on Lorne, give us the figures.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- I don’t want to take the time in the House.

Mr. Laughren: Go ahead.

Mr. Warner: Dazzle us.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I just happen to have them in front of me.

In 1978, the imports were 6.8 per cent; in 1979 they’re higher. The present Minister of Agriculture for Canada has set the total imports for 1979 at 45 million pounds, which is quite a bit less than six per cent; for 1980, 48.5 million pounds; for 1981, 52 million pounds. So the honourable member understands the situation, in 1982 and thereafter imports will be 6.3 per cent of the previous year’s Canadian domestic production. I read out earlier that 1978 imports were 6.8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the statement has been made. I am now concerned, as most of the members of this Legislature realize, that we in Ontario consume about one third of the poultry within our great dominion. This statement does not include what portion of that 6.3 per cent will be permitted into Ontario. That is of concern to me as Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you satisfied or not?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, to answer the leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If he wants to ask a supplementary, he can do it in the same way.

Mr. MacDonald: Even if the imports are marginally down, and only marginally, from this past year, since Loblaws and Maple Lodge Farms Limited, from Norval, Ontario, themselves have 6.3 per cent of the Ontario production in their imports and therefore, in effect, control prices and deprive the marketing board of the statutory power they have to fix prices in accordance with farmers’ needs, what is the minister going to do about that?

Secondly, will he answer the question, instead of calculatingly evading it, what is he going to do about designating the origins of chickens that are in the markets in the province of Ontario so people who respond to his buy-Ontario program can know what produce is from Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the latter part of the honourable member’s question, I have already pointed out to the chicken producers that they should be putting on a campaign to advertise our Ontario poultry.

Mr. Warner: What are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I passed that on to them about two and a half weeks ago. I have already pointed out to the chicken producers that this is important. Other producers’ organizations are doing it.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that under the Canadian Agriculture Products Standards Act, country of origin must be prominently displayed along with the product or with advertising? Is he not aware that there are working agreements between inspectors of his department and of the federal department? What is he doing to see these regulations that are already in place are enforced?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the honourable member has done his homework on this.

Mr. Martel: Maybe they should wear a flag.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Had the poultry been brought in in dressed weight and ready for the consumer, then it would have to carry the country of origin. But in view of the fact that they were brought in on a live-weight basis --

Mr. Kerrio: As landed immigrants.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- and were inspected by government of Canada inspectors, they have then received inspection in Ontario and approval by the inspectors from Canada. The honourable member has been misinformed.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary: Would the minister explain why his answers are so inadequate and why this bag of carrots can carry a Foodland Ontario symbol --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Isaacs: -- but not this chicken telling where it comes from? The consumers of this province have no way of knowing whether this is a Canadian chicken or an American chicken. Can the minister explain that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the minister hear the question?

Mr. Kerrio: Bring a live one in tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I missed the honourable member’s statement as to whether it was a pullet or a rooster.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister can’t tell the difference, can he?

Mr. Watson: It’s a capon.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary: I’m glad to be in on the official introduction of the next leader of the NDP.

Mr. Eaton: It sure won’t be the member. He’s a dead duck.

Mr. Breithhaupt: And the guy who was holding it was interesting too.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It reminds me of a story about a pig and somebody else, but we won’t go into it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You can tell it at another time.

Mr. Watson: That’s my story.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Following the question of my colleague, the member for Kent-Elgin, would it not make sense to the minister to press his federal colleague and take action himself to ensure that imports are labelled as to country of origin and save the Canadian producers having to put that on the produce to differentiate so that imports are stamped with the country of origin, such as the United States, in order that the consumer will be aware?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I think I answered this question.

Mr. Warner: The minister is evading the question.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I don’t know how one would stamp a live bird as an import to our country. I think I answered that question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You’d kill it.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Treasurer. Since it is now approaching a year from the time when the federal government announced it was withdrawing from the ARDA program, and since the provincial government has been negotiating with the federal government since that period of time in relation to an eastern Ontario development agreement, I would ask the Treasurer, where do those negotiations now stand?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’d hoped for the signing of an eastern Ontario agreement today, October 22. I was informed that the federal government had hoped to be ready to sign an eastern Ontario agreement. There are some words back from Ottawa saying that it is passing the last hurdles within the process and should be ready within a few days.

I recognize that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been undergoing some pretty thorough reviews by the new government. In fact, a meeting that was to be held on October 26 has been temporarily postponed while they sort out the overall DREE philosophies.

I trust and believe, as of this morning, that that agreement will be ready. The one concern I have is that I haven’t yet seen the accepted version. As the member knows, Ontario had some changes to offer. I can’t commit this government to sign it until I know that it meets our requirements.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Since the minister had indicated previously that he was prepared to try to get the federal government to change its view with respect to the areas covered by the new agreement and, specifically, to try to see if the counties of Huron, Bruce and Grey could be included in the new agreement, what progress has been made on that particular aspect of the new agreement?

Mr. Eakins: How about Victoria-Haliburton?

Mr. Gaunt: What progress has been made on that particular aspect of the new agreement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The counties I recall are Haliburton, Victoria, Peterborough and Muskoka. Those ones I know were critical. I know that certain pressures were on us to have the ones the member has named included, but he has touched one of the key points: of course, geography was one of the points of discussion.

Mr. Warner: Yes, all those areas coloured blue.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I really haven’t heard back whether the minister has accepted the versions Ontario has put forward. That was for an expansion of the geographic area.

Mr. Martel: Acid rain will kill everything in Muskoka.

ANNETTE BARNES

Hon. Mrs. Birch: On Friday the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked several questions about the provision of Flexical, a food substitute, for Mrs. Annette Barnes of Scarborough, who suffers from Crohn’s disease. There have been a number of errors in press accounts of this situation that I am now pleased to clarify.

In response to questions from my office, London Life Insurance Company has notified me that all claims made on behalf of Mrs. Barnes by her former employer have been paid. No claims were made in 1978 and all claims presented in 1979 were accepted by the insurance company in a liberalization of its policy.

The company notes that it now knows of no reason for Mrs. Barnes to have limited her supply in any way, since they have paid all claims. This arrangement was to have been terminated January 23, 1980, but the case is now under review. Some press accounts of this unfortunate incident indicated that Mrs. Barnes would have to go on welfare in order to afford the supply of Flexical that she requires had her insurance payments terminated.

There is help available for cases such as this through a special assistance program administered at the local level. It is not necessary to be in receipt of family benefits or general welfare assistance to qualify for special assistance.

One last word: although Flexical and many similar preparations are not registered by the federal government as drugs in Canada, the Ontario drug benefit plan will pay for them as exceptions if a doctor certifies in writing that the patient requires such a preparation for medical reasons.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Given the statement which the minister has just made, how does she explain the fact that as of 1 p.m. today Mrs. Barnes has not heard from either the insurance company or the Ministry of Health? All she had received was a call from the provincial secretary expressing concern on Friday, but basically had heard absolutely nothing else, was in a complete panic, on her last case of this medicine as of noon today and at 1 p.m. had heard from absolutely nobody about this. How does that kind of thing happen?

Mr. Breithaupt: She’ll have to read Hansard.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: My explanation would be that the insurance company is dealing with the employer, not with Mrs. Barnes. We have been assured by the insurance company that all of her claims will be paid. I cannot understand --

Mr. S. Smith: Will be paid, or have been paid?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This is the information we have been given.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food pertaining to the increases in fluid milk prices to the consumer. Since the increase is expected to be about five cents by November 9 and the formula, justified by the farmers’ increased costs, is only 2.8 cents, does it concern him that the profit level of the major dairies does not warrant the increased cost to the consumer above what the farm formula requires?

Is he aware, for example, that the profit for Becker Milk Company Limited this year was $2,266,000 when a year ago it was only $560,000; and for Silverwood Dairies this year the profit was $1,517,000 and a year ago $294,000? Wouldn’t he think that perhaps the dairies ought to come under price review as well as the farmers so that the use of the product is not going to be cut back by over- pricing?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member is, I believe, as well aware as any of us of the new increase that was granted last week to the milk producers. The increase, as he mentioned, is just under three cents a quart for the farmers -- that is, the additional money the farmer will get.

I have no proof; maybe he does. I read in the Globe and Mail that it will likely make a five-cent increase per quart of milk.

Mr. MacDonald: You are going to wait until it is a fait accompli.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member is well aware there has been a hearing before the appeal tribunal; the consumers were there, the processors were there and each side had an opportunity to present their case. It was proven that the dollar and a few cents which has been granted to the milk producer does not cover their increased costs since their last increase.

The next question, which really was the question -- I want to clear the air on that part -- concerned what the processor is going to charge for his milk. I am as interested as anyone, but at this moment it doesn’t appear to me -- maybe the member will tell me otherwise -- that it comes under the authority of this ministry to tell the processor or the dairy --

An hon. member: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: As I say, I am leaving members that ground to tell me I am wrong. It doesn’t appear to me I have the authority to tell the processor or the dairy what they can charge. If these members can tell me the opposite, I am ready to listen.

Mr. Nixon: I was looking at the figures of the profits provided and I just wanted to correct them. The profit last year for Silverwoods was $1,517,658 -- that is $1.13 a share. The year before it was $561,926, or 42 cents a share. The point really is this: the farmers must justify on a formula before the milk marketing board the increases they get. In this instance, it is 2.89 cents.

Surely the minister, with his colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs and maybe even with the Premier’s involvement, can find out some procedure whereby, using the authority of this Legislature, we are not going to allow this kind of piggyback profit-taking -- which is certainly going to be very bad news to the consumers and the producers as well -- just for the additional profits of the dairies.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member has brought out some very interesting information. When the milk producer asked for his increase --

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you guys support our bill? Are you for the farmer?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- he went before the Farm Products Marketing Board. It was at the request of this board that he went before the appeal tribunal which has granted the increase. We believe it is not under our jurisdiction.

Mr. MacDonald: Put it there.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am waiting for the member to tell me where it is under this minister’s jurisdiction to take the action he is suggesting.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister, does he not realize the retail price of milk in the last less than thee years has gone up more than 30 per cent? That is substantially higher than the increase in wages and salaries. Does the minister not think his government has the responsibility to do something about this?

Did the minister see the statement of Mr. Robert Lowe, the president of Becker Milk Company Limited, in this morning’s paper to the effect the distributors are getting together tomorrow night and will probably settle for a five per cent increase?

If that statement is correct, does he not think it is contrary to the principle of competition and isn’t it contrary to the principle of the anti-combines legislation? Does he not think that in itself should cause his government to intervene in this 2.1-cent increase piggybacked on the top of the 2.89?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member brings out some very important information. The price of milk has increased 30 per cent. Who knows, maybe it should have increased 50 per cent?

Mr. Swart: What about the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Maybe the farmer is still producing it too cheaply. Did the member ever think of that? Maybe the farmer is not getting enough for his milk.

Mr. Swart: Don’t you think your government should intervene?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Has the minister answered the question?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I would suggest the route they are suggesting lies with the government of Canada.

ACID RAIN

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of Inco’s declaration of an extra dividend and profits of $72.5 million in the past nine months, is the minister not convinced that Inco can afford to make the necessary changes in its processes to reduce substantially its emissions from the 3,000 tons per day now allowed? If so, will he put a new control order on Inco to require such a reduction before we all die from the horrendous effects of acid rain?

Mr. Rotenberg: She’s one of the fishes.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would have to say the overstatement of the member should be noted: there is no threat to human life from dying from acid rain. I am sure after all those hours in committee that the member is well aware of that basic fact and I am a little disappointed that she should use such a statement.

Mr. Warner: Both you and the president of Inco.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is plenty of concern in this province about the effects of acid rain without trying to cast it in those terms.

Mr. Martel: Where?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: So I think it is unfortunate to have done so.

Mr. Martel: Temporary measures.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Secondly, as the member knows, we are in estimates now on this very subject. It is only tomorrow night that we have agreed to talk about not only Inco but indeed all of the problem of acid rain. I think that would be a great time to explore those possibilities.

I am afraid the member also knows it is not only a matter of having enough money, it’s also a matter of having the right technology to do so.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give us that.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am disappointed that those members who represent that area seem very determined that they will view it in very simplistic terms.

Mr. Warner: Inco has really got to you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is not that simple.

Mr. Makarchuk: You don’t want to do anything.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I have also said that we will take the appropriate action with Inco at the right time.

Mr. Warner: You’ll do nothing.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I did want to comment on the use of the word “die.” I meant that our ecosystem is in danger of dying and that can affect our life generally. Perhaps the minister will suggest to the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) that he advertise Ontario as the place that is the home of a plant that produces one per cent of the sulphur pollution of the world and produces more than all the volcanoes in the history of mankind.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Is that proven?

Ms. Bryden: Therefore, is it not something that should have top priority on getting a new order out?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am glad the member was prepared to change the word she used because at this time I am sure it’s very important we don’t have those kinds of misstatements that seem to have filled the media on much of this issue --

Mr. Lupusella: Answer the question.

Mr. Swart: You’d better talk to Drea.

Mr. Mackenzie: We don’t have a simplistic approach.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have tried to put the facts forward. We will continue to do so in the House and in the estimates.

Mr. Martel: You’ve been bamboozled by them.

Mr. Warner: You’ll do nothing.

Mr. Martel: Mesmerized.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I’m afraid not; not at all. I just wish the members opposite would fully realize the complexity of that issue and make sure their statements reflect that complexity rather than the simplified statement that is here. It is that simple.

Mr. Warner: You knuckled under to them.

[Later (3:28):]

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, I would ask you to rule on this with the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment, in responding to a question from my colleague, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), indicated the members representing the Sudbury area were being simplistic in their condemnation of the levels of emissions from the Inco superstack.

I would ask you to rule on this because the material the members from the area have used when debating this issue is material from Inco itself, which indicated that in a four-year period they could reduce the emissions from 3,500 or 3,600 tons a day to 1,500 tons at a cost of $299 million, not $2 billion. It’s the minister who is being simplistic in his response to this problem, not us.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, that constitutes a point of privilege -- that abrogates your privilege as a member of this House.

[Reverting (3:24):]

HEPATITIS OUTBREAK

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on Friday while I was in Kingston to take part in the opening of the new health sciences building at Queen’s University, which was funded under the health resources development plan of our government, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), if the ministry was aware of what he called an unusually high incidence of infectious hepatitis in southwestern Ontario.

In response, sir, my staff advised me the number of reported cases of infectious hepatitis, or hepatitis A, has actually been decreasing. Rates of cases for 100,000 population have decreased both for the whole of the province and for southwestern Ontario. In 1975, the provincial rate was 8.8 cases for 100,000 population, compared with 5.6 per 100,000 population for 1978.

There has been some increase in the reporting of serum hepatitis, or what is known as hepatitis B, with a provincial rate of 3.1 per 100,000 in 1975 and 4.4 per 100,000 in 1978.

It is suspected, as indicated by my epidemiologist in the Ministry of Health, this increase of reporting reflects an increased awareness of the disease on the part of practicing physicians. However, in southwestern Ontario, for this same period of time, the rate in fact dropped from 4.8 per 100,000 population in 1975 to 3.9 per 100,000 in 1978. These statistics are from my epidemiologist in the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Peterson: Your studies are all stale.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the honourable member also referred to a case of leprosy. A single case of this disease did enter Canada recently and was diagnosed by a London physician. While leprosy, or Hansen’s disease, is inadmissible to Canada and investigation is under way to determine the cause of the incident, the case is under treatment and is not a threat to public health.

I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, we have in the province at this time a total of 95 cases of Hansen’s disease that are registered and under surveillance in Ontario. This is the cumulative total of all reported cases in the province. I should tell you too that in 1979 there have been a total of four new cases in the province.

Mr. Peterson: It is not my intention to raise alarm but the numbers the minister has given us are very stale. This is obviously a survey of last year. I understand those are the minister’s most recent statistics, He said 1978.

My question to the minister is an important question. Is he monitoring this daily? Does he have current, up-to-date statistics about it and can he give this House the same assurances that there has been no increase in the last few months because clearly we are talking about a contemporary situation, not an historical one.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the epidemiologist from the ministry that the reported cases I have indicated of hepatitis B or the serum type are increasing in the whole of the country because of a variety of factors, not the least of them being a growing awareness on the part of practicing physicians of what to look for, which has been highlighted by concerns about recent waves of immigration into the country and in particular people coming from southeast Asia.

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

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege? The member for Wentworth North.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOL YARD

Mr. Cunningham: Last Thursday, I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment with regard to the possibility of soil contamination in the city of Cambridge. In the minister’s response, he indicated he would favour us with an answer the next day. That was Friday. I noticed the minister was here in the House today and I have yet to hear an answer from him or a statement from him with regard to what I regard to be a most serious matter. I would hope possibly you might draw to his attention my discontent and I am sure the discontent of the member for Cambridge on this.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure your remarks will be brought to the attention of the honourable minister.

[3:30]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When the committee adjourned the other day, I believe the member for Erie said he had a few comments and questions. I recognise the member for Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to the proposals put forth by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), as relates to the disaster areas in the province of Ontario.

My main concern is perhaps the criteria of how the ministry accepts a request from a municipality to define the area as a disaster area. I know the minister is well aware of the problems along the shoreline of Lake Erie, where Lake Erie is considered or classed as a tilting lake. Heavy winds come in from the western basin of Lake Erie and cause havoc at the eastern end of the lake. Municipalities, particularly in my area and I am sure in the Haldimand-Norfolk area, at different times have run into difficulties through the high levels of water.

Heavy seas out on Lake Erie can cause considerable damage to the shoreline, particularly to municipal property.

As I am sure the minister is well aware, the city of Port Colborne is celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Welland Canal. It may be an asset to the city of Port Colborne and its peninsula, but when the original design of the canal was chosen, Gravelly Bay was the southerly basin chosen as the entrance to the Welland Canal. It was perhaps one of the lowest spots, the lowest ground levels in the Niagara Peninsula on the south shoreline. The city of Port Colborne now is located on both sides of the Welland Canal.

When heavy seas come in, or high water comes up in the harbour at Port Colborne, the water almost goes over the top of the control borders on the Welland Canal. Sometimes it goes over the top of the limit of the canal. Not only that, but the existing drains both on the east side and on the west side of Port Colborne cause considerable flooding to the homes in that area.

I believe it was last spring when they had another serious storm that caused considerable damage to property in the area; basements were flooded with a loss of furniture. In a number of cases, local household insurance will not cover that type of disaster.

I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk suggested in his comments that maybe we should have a policy or program similar to crop insurance, so people living in an area where annual disasters occur may buy special insurance coverage. I suggest that perhaps the minister should be looking at that.

I know it is difficult for municipalities to understand why assistance isn’t given to them, particularly the city of Port Colborne that is subject to flooding at times, since it seems that you can establish a criteria in other municipalities where you pay a matching grant of 50-50 for fund raising. Sometimes it may be three for one. It was mentioned before by the previous speaker that they are interest free.

I suggest to the minister that where there is that worry along the shoreline of Lake Erie, due to the abnormally high levels of water, that it causes considerable difficulties to municipalities and to the property owners. I suggest we should take a look at the request from the city of Port Colborne for assistance, when they do have the storms in that area, because storms can happen overnight and could be rather disastrous for that community.

I had the opportunity of visiting the area around Vanessa and Woodstock. I will tell you it was the most ravaged area that I had seen, any place, in any disaster. It just indicates that one may not be too sure of any Ontario location in which one may live that one may encounter a severe storm that may cause considerable damage to property and even the loss of life. I suggest the minister has to take a good close look at the question of the city of Port Colborne and other municipalities along the shoreline of Lake Erie which may ask for assistance after heavy storms and heavy seas.

Mr. Nixon: Just before the minister answers, I expressed some views on this when his estimates were before us a few days ago, but since that time there have been two or three other matters the minister might be able to deal with.

The first is that although I think the fund raising is going reasonably well, the assessment of the damage and the payout to those who require the funding is very slow. I realize also that this is not directly the responsibility of the ministry and that his staff has done a good job in co-ordinating the various programs. But there was a recent report indicating that the assessing staff -- the people who are going over the claims of damage -- were doing a very careful job. Everybody expects them to, but at the rate they’re going it will be many months before even the basic payment gets to most of the people who were damaged by the storm. They could be carried by loans of various types, but I wonder if there’s any procedure whereby, with government assistance and perhaps some additional staff from the ministry or some of the agencies associated with the ministry, we might be able to speed this up.

There are two other matters I have discussed with the minister’s staff I feel should at least be on the record here and the minister made aware of them. He may very well be aware of them already and want to make a response.

A number of constituents have approached me lamenting that from the damage funds there will be no assistance for the rebuilding of the damaged churches. I believe five or six churches were damaged, four or five of them being United Church buildings. I’m an adherent and member of that church myself. I’m not just sure what the good Lord is trying to tell us but He knows, as do we all, that the members of those churches are very anxious to restore them or to take whatever alternative arrangement they might find best to suit their needs and the needs of their community. I understand there has been some difficulty in approving assistance for the churches and there may even be other provincial programs that would assist in those restorations.

The third thing is -- and the minister may be aware of this as well -- there are a number of excellent orchards in the area. I have written to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) about special assistance for the farmers who lost their orchards. Naturally the trees in the path of the storm were uprooted and completely destroyed. As a matter of fact I could tell you stories about finding parts of those apple trees two miles from the orchards and up in the tops of other trees. The damage was just incredible.

These orchard trees cannot be equated with normal crops -- which I understand would not receive compensation from the normal storm fund. They would be eligible for the normal crop insurance assistance, but the orchard trees take at least seven years to be restored to a state where they are going to produce a crop. As has been pointed out even by people in your own ministry, they could very well be considered a capital asset to the farm rather than just a crop like a field of corn or wheat or even tobacco.

It seems there should be consideration given to recognizing the orchard trees as a capital asset. Perhaps some other program -- maybe through your colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- could be found to provide the kind of assistance the orchard growers are going to require. Once they have registered their complaint, and it’s been forthcoming to the Minister and Food and others, they have not been pressing it unduly.

I feel this really should be something that is given consideration in this debate. I think with the attitude the government has shown previously in this connection there could very well be a kind of program established that would meet at least the major part of the problem.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I also have a few things to discuss with the minister that have been in the works for a while.

First of all, I guess, would be Port Maitland. We’ve had a considerable dialogue and correspondence in regard to programs that might be of assistance to the small community of Port Maitland. It had been flooded out in 1975, I think, and again in April of this past year and one time in between -- three times in the last five years. Many of the folks who owned these homes are older residents; I think 20 were affected in this past flood. I would like the minister to clarify what programs there are that might be of assistance to the municipality and to the town of Dunnville.

I would also like to ask the minister how much of the shoreline protection fund has been utilized in the past year and if there is any thought of stepping up the program. We have a particular program at Port Dover just east of the new harbour that was put in a few years back by the federal government. It is encroaching on permanent residential areas and on the water and sewage systems. Now they have extended the sewage system to Woodhouse Acres, which is a subdivision in the immediate area. I wondered if that might be given some priority and if there is any fund for protecting that particular area.

I was asked a question by one of the councillors of the city of Nanticoke who is concerned about the shoreline protection fund. If someone takes out a loan -- and I know it is payable to the municipality -- and that work is washed away, who is responsible? Is the municipality totally responsible for that loss in the event they are unable to claim and they have no assets? That is a point I would like clarified.

Two other issues have been noted by my other colleague regarding the hurricane. One is, if a home owner had insurance on his home but it was an older home and wasn’t adequate and he needed more funding, could he borrow for the remainder at six per cent? Is there any qualifying figure there?

Second, the Long Point Conservation Authority is, as requested, doing a lot of cleaning up in the streams which were tree damaged in the tornado area. I think 25 per cent of the funding will have to come out of this year’s budget. They were wondering if there might be some special assistance. I think the funding would be in the neighbourhood of $2,500 or $3,000 to clean up the streams and waterways in the tornado area through the Long Point Conservation Authority.

Those are the questions that concern me at the present time. Perhaps the minister could answer them for me.

Mr. Warner: This government has been operating for quite a few years on an ad hoc basis in disaster funding, dependent mostly upon the ability of the local community affected to raise a certain amount of money. I am wondering if the government has any plan in mind to take this important program out of the realm of ad hoc and put it into some more definite planning, particularly where that planning will mean that communities are not going to be obligated to a certain percentage of the total funds required.

While I can speak with same emotion about my own area, which was affected by flooding a while back, the people in our area in perspective to the entire province did not suffer so much. They were not faced with the same kind of difficulty as the people in Field, far example, or Iron Bridge. When you ask a small community like that to come up with any dollars -- and I think the ministry is anticipating $50,000 from Iron Bridge, which is a lot of money for a small community -- in perspective, it isn’t the same difficulty for the people of Scarborough as it is for the people of Iron Bridge.

[3:45J

I had suggested prior to this minister taking office that we try to establish a permanent type of fund whereby you set aside a certain amount each year and put it into a trust so that at times when we’re lucky enough not to have natural disasters we accrue some interest on the money to carry us through the difficult times, such as last year when it appeared we got more than our fair share of natural disasters in the province. For some reason that suggestion has never met with favour from this government. I would appreciate the minister’s comments.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like to talk about some of the sewer problems and disaster problems in High Park. The minister may know there are miles and miles of new sewers and drains being laid in Metropolitan Toronto. I don’t know if the minister is aware of the method of operation involved.

What I discovered in my riding is this:

The sewer construction company, in this case, Beaver Underground Structures Limited, canvassed the area and found they were going to have some difficulty because the greater part of High Park is built on filled ground. There are a lot of underground creeks and rivers in High Park. They realized they were going to have some problems, but they didn’t bother telling the city or telling the residents about any of the problems they were anticipating They very quietly hired a consulting firm to go out, photograph and monitor seismographically the construction as it progressed.

In one area in south Parkdale, on Parkdale Road in particular, after a few months of construction, most of the houses started tilting one way or another. The people complained to their local aldermen, the aldermen complained to the city officials, and the city officials said, “We’re off the hook; none of this affects us. We’ve got a contract with Beaver Underground Structures Limited where they take full responsibility for their actions and the city is not liable for any of the damage to property.”

The people got together and realized Beaver Underground Structures had protected itself as well. Beaver had investigated all the properties, found out where there were cracks and where there weren’t cracks and it was able to make a very good case for not having damaged anyone’s property, even though some houses are almost tilting over and one house is about to fall down. They have denied responsibility and have offered the residents in the area only token settlements.

I brought the matter up with city officials and they are reviewing it because Beaver Underground Structures has gone over budget and is asking the city for a couple of million dollars more. Before the city goes ahead with giving them more money I’ve asked them to hold off on their final payout until the residents in the area are satisfied their damages are paid.

The question has come up about compensation from the minister’s emergency fund. It seems to me developers like Beaver Underground Structures should be closely watched by municipal authorities and when they damage someone’s property the government has an obligation and a duty to make sure people are fully compensated not only for damage but for the loss of enjoyment of their property, which is another point. This construction has been going on in my riding for two years. Great big well-drilling derricks are in place on Parkdale Road and this well-drilling outfit runs 24 hours a day, which means constant noise, vibration and dust. People who have taken pride in their homes and who have their life’s savings tied up in their homes are being denied the use of their homes. They can’t park their cars on the street because of the workers’ cars taking up all the available parking, even though the residents are paying the parking fee to the city.

I think government in this case has an obligation to step in and monitor a situation like that, knowing full well that when a developer moves into a very densely populated area like this there are going to be problems. People should be informed in advance that their properties may be affected, so they can also hire consultants or whatever and can get the other side of the picture. Instead of the developer’s having all the ammunition it would be proper that the residents should have access to the same information.

I’d like to take the minister on a tour of my riding some day to show him some of these cracks in buildings, and buildings that have tilted as a result of the draining of an underground river. They dug a cavern 36 feet across underneath one street. All the homes on the street were affected one way or another, some more than others. I don’t know if the minister has any solutions to their problem or if he can offer any relief. I’m sure it would be most appreciated. People in that area have lost confidence in the way government does things. It seems that government has prided itself on being able to operate with some of these construction firms, but it doesn’t work out that way as far as the city of Toronto is concerned.

Beaver Underground Structures Limited has damaged many properties and has offered to compensate very few people for the damage it has done. I’d like the minister to look into this matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’d be happy to make some inquiries and see what I can find out in this particular matter. I haven’t had any personal knowledge of it. I understand in simple terms what the problem is. Certain works are being done on behalf of the city of Toronto by a firm called Beaver -- what is it?

Mr. Ziemba: Beaver Underground Structures Limited.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Beaver Underground Structures Limited. And in the course of doing this work they’ve caused damage to some of the properties?

It was always my understanding that firms carried insurance to cover that kind of eventuality or contingency, and people could make application to the company that carried the insurance for that firm. I would have thought the city would insist that anyone who tendered on a job would carry that kind of insurance.

I recall when the government was widening Highway 401 through Metro, it went through my riding as it did through many of the members’ ridings. There was concern at the time that certain damage would be done to homes. After some early bad experiences with the process, somebody came around from the then Ministry of Highways and took pictures of the walls of all the homes; then if anyone claimed that they had been cracked or in any way damaged during the work they could immediately check it out. If that had happened there were adjusters there to see that the cracks and the damage were repaired.

That’s the way I think that kind of thing should work. I don’t think it is anything that would involve our government in any way. It’s quite a different thing from the disaster relief fund and the kind of events we were talking about in the other context a few minutes ago in this debate. But I’ll be glad to take a look and see if I can elicit any other information from the city’s building department or works department on this particular matter.

Let me give a few answers to the questions that some of the members have asked about disaster relief and the fund and some of the operations of the fund in other areas.

First of all, I want to say that our disaster relief program is not an ad hoc program. We have a disaster relief policy, The only thing that might in some way be termed ad hoc is the application of the policy in so far as the amounts of matching funds are concerned. It’s well known in this province’s municipalities and communities that we do have a policy. It’s anything but ad hoc. It says that if one sets up a committee and if the council by motion asks us as a cabinet to declare its area as a disaster area, based upon a certain occurrence that has occurred in that particular area, and if the cabinet so declares it, then the cabinet then declares what the matching amounts of money will be, and this program then goes into effect. As I say, it’s not an ad hoc program; it’s a program that’s there to assist in disasters that occur.

Mr. Nixon: It’s a program only in that you keep doing it the same way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right, but precedent is a great way. That’s the way we run this house, I think, or at least we do part of it anyway. That’s why the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and I spend our weekends reading May -- sometimes. Actually, I guess, it’s the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) who’s the expert at reading May over the weekend.

Precedents, however, can become policies and, as I say, most of the municipalities know this is the approach this government has had towards disaster relief. Believe me, within a very short time of any disaster occurring, a resolution from a council is usually in here through our field office and cabinet is making a decision and the full machinery is kicking in.

However, that doesn’t preclude the fact that we can look at the whole operation of this procedure over the next little while. There’s no question, as many members have mentioned, that this year it has probably operated in more cases than in any year that I can certainly recall.

In so far as the operation of this fund is concerned and the Woodstock-Oxford area that my friend was talking about, first of all, in so far as the churches are concerned, it has been our determination -- and I think my staff has been talking to you about it -- that if the local committee wishes to include churches in the arrangements for reimbursement we would have no objection to that. If the local committee in the Oxford area decides that it would accept claims from the churches -- and I saw those churches there; many of the United Churches were completely razed and are going to have a job rebuilding -- if the committee would like to assist them we certainly wouldn’t object to the churches being included with private homes. Therefore they would be eligible for assistance out of the fund if the local committee so decides.

I think that in a like manner the decision has been made that orchards also could be counted as a capital asset and therefore the owners of the orchards could make application to the fund. If the local committee wished to consider those eligible for reimbursement it could do that.

We have no objections in those two particular areas, provided the local committee is willing to accept them as claims against the fund. I would think personally that this should happen in the area where the tornado hit, because I understand they have a sizeable fund. Therefore there should be adequate money to assist the churches, the orchards and any of the other endeavours that are making claims against the fund.

It was also mentioned that there’s difficulty in getting payouts from the fund. I’m told that part of the problem there is not so much the lack of people to assess the damages and come up with the kind of paperwork that’s necessary for the payment to be made, but rather it’s because there is so much insurance involvement connected with those claims; the fund people want the insurance claims settled first before they then decide how much they’re going to pay on top of it. I think that, of necessity, has slowed up the procedure.

The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) was just telling me that in the Dover situation, where there were some hardships, the fund in that area has been advancing money to people based on the likelihood of the final determination of the amount of the claim. They’ve been making some advances to people who haven’t been able to straighten up all the details to put in their final claim and so have not left them sitting waiting with no assistance.

[4:00]

In so far as shoreline properties are concerned, I guess the only answer I can give my friend in that regard is our shoreline properties assistance program, of which I am sure he is well aware. It is a program under which municipalities provide loans to people to remedy damage that has been caused by high water levels and so forth to properties along the shoreline. It is under our Shoreline Properties Assistance Act. Our subsidies branch, of course, can make all those details available to the various municipalities. That is a program whereby the municipality actually makes the loan and then we provide the backup assistance and cover that on behalf of the municipality.

A question was also asked about what happens if a person having applied for that loan, and the work the money was used for washes out the next year, who is responsible for the loan. It is my understanding the person who applied for the loan is responsible. In other words, if you borrow money to make certain repairs under that program it is the same as any loan; if something happens to the thing you buy with the loan you are responsible for repayment of the loan.

I understand the Port Maitland situation is concerned with waves, not high water. The homes affected there are on the other side of a street; is that correct? You are interested in Port Colborne, I know, but the Port Maitland one is concerned with waves, basically, and homes on the other.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Wind was a factor in raising the water level six and seven feet within a few hours.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. As I understand it, they are not on the shoreline, so under the definition of a property affected in our shoreline properties assistance program they wouldn’t be eligible; they are across the road. I think you have written us about that and we have suggested that perhaps the Ministry of Housing might have some programs; but technically it doesn’t fall within the shoreline assistance program.

Mr. G. I. Miller: What about the Great Lakes flooding program; is that separate from shoreline protection? I might point out to the minister it is not caused by waves; it is the wind action forcing the water level up on this side of the lake. In April of this year, at 3 a.m., it was normal, and by 9 p.m. it was up six and seven feet. I think there were 20 homes flooded. It went out as quickly as it came in. When the wind died down the water dropped back out.

If it doesn’t fit under the Great Lakes flooding program I wonder what that program is for; is it going to be utilized and could they fit it into that financial program?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As much as I can ascertain here at the minute, we don’t have a program that would cover the situation in Port Maitland. We haven’t had a year when property owners were eligible for aid under the Great Lakes flooding program since 1975.

The shoreline assistance program doesn’t apply to the problem you are referring to in Port Maitland. It would appear at this time there is no program within this ministry to cover that situation.

I would direct you to the Ministry of Housing. It may be they have something, but I can’t think of a program we have that would cover those homes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) has answered me to the effect that in the home renewal program there is money available if they can fit the criteria. I think the Minister of Housing has indicated that.

The question I am concerned about is what is the Great Lakes flooding program for if this little municipality doesn’t fit into that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is for a completely abnormal water level on the Great Lakes, caused by general circumstances resulting in damage --

Mr. Haggerty: Lake Erie is two and a half inches higher than normal.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- all along this particular shoreline. It is not to cover damage from waves caused by wind at a particular time in the year. It is a different program.

Mr. Makarchuk: I thought I would clarify this in the minister’s mind. This problem evolves when the lake waters are high. What happens in effect is that when the water is high and the wind blows in from a certain direction, the lake has a tendency to “tilt,” as it is known in the local vernacular. The water level then rises about six or seven feet and floods the areas.

But the initial problem is that there is a high water level in the lake; it is considered to be “in a state of flood.” The combination of a “state of flood” and high winds creates this problem. So perhaps it could be looked at in that light.

When the lake is at its normal level this problem may still manifest itself; but certainly not as severely as on occasions when the lake is in flood.

Mr. Haggerty: I thought perhaps the minister would be looking at some of the questions I proposed to him before, and with which I led off this afternoon.

I think I indicated that it relates to the level of Lake Erie, which is now about two and a half inches above normal. It has been high for the last four or five years. Even so, the lake level has increased two and a half inches over what it was a year ago, which is way beyond the level it should be.

The reason I bring this to the minister’s attention is because I mentioned the city of Port Colborne. I should thank the ministry for past help in giving substantial assistance to the city of Port Colborne for certain drain systems in the area. When lake waters rise at a height of seven or eight feet almost everything is covered.

I should not speak only of the city of Port Colborne. The town of Fort Erie has a major program to install storm sewers and municipal sewers. In the last heavy winds and high seas from Lake Erie, every home in Crescent Park in Fort Erie was flooded. Even with the check valves in the drainage system and the municipal sewage treatment scheme, homes and basements were flooded.

The same thing applied to the city of Port Colborne. Taxpayers complain of flooding. The municipality hires engineers and a consultant comes in with a study and report. He is the one perhaps who does the final job. Then the Ministry of the Environment is involved. For some unknown reason they all have more problems after the new installation of sewers. Houses are still being flooded, even after installation of safety precautions. When the lake level rises in that area, water pressure causes eruption of the lines.

This is why I think the minister will have to change his criteria. When people make a request for assistance under the Great Lakes Road damage program fund, in which there is $450,000, I think instances such as Port Colborne should apply. Property owners are not to blame. They bought their land and property without realizing the full extent of this type of problem. Yet in both of these municipalities, they run into this problem year after year.

These people are being flooded out year after year. I sympathize with them. I think when they pay for service from an engineering company, they should receive the best from those involved. Obviously they are not. I think it is time that this ministry looked into the quality of engineering service received by some of these municipalities to make certain that they are not being short-changed on a product they are purchasing, After all, they had their problems before that and they were told, “When you have sewers and storm sewers installed, this will resolve all the problems.” That didn’t happen in this particular area.

I suggest to the minister something is going to have to be done. They can’t seem to collect the household insurance they purchased. It doesn’t solve their problems. The insurance agent usually says it’s an act of God and that gets the company off the hook us far as paying out claims. I suggest there’s got to be some other government measures whereby people could buy special insurance so they can get some protection, the same as the farmer does when he wants crop insurance. I suggest there’s a problem in that area. The property owners have paid for good engineering service. Whether they have got it or not I don’t know, but when you have three bodies involved in it -- the consultant, the regional engineering staff and the Minister of the Environment’s engineering staff -- they can’t come up with some solution to it, there’s something wrong with our system.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to take a look at some of the situations my friend has indicated. I am not personally aware of them, although I understand some of the problems go back 15, 20, 25 years probably, based upon the determinations of the community to allow development in areas that have probably not been the best place for development. Of course it’s easy to look back, but a lot of our problems are caused because of that. Probably there are properties that are too close to the shoreline --

Mr. Haggerty: These are away back.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and it would be better if they weren’t there. I can’t really offer any other assistance or help at this time, except to say it’s the kind of thing we can look at. My friend knows the programs available at the present time here -- the special emergency program, the shoreline properties assistance and so forth.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: While the minister is being inundated by flooding problems, I would like to talk of something a little high and dry which reflects upon the Robarts commission report. I want to know a couple of things.

In our erstwhile weekly in Scarborough, the Mirror, I remember seeing an article which, if it didn’t say definitely, at least implied you might be providing some legislation this fall in terms of the term of office of local elected officials; which would be something I would support, that is a move to the three-year term as proposed under the Robarts report and supported by all the municipalities I have seen. I am wondering if you do intend to bring in that legislation this fall; and if so when?

The other side of that, for which I would hope the minister might bring in legislation that would fit along with it, would be about election expenses of candidates in the municipal field. The same kinds of privileges now given to provincial candidates and federal candidates might be extended to municipal candidates, specifically in terms of Metropolitan Toronto.

I don’t presume to suggest I would know the situation for other communities across the province, but we are now dealing with almost all full-time aldermen in the city, people who are giving up their careers or livelihoods to undertake full-time aldermanic work. A lot of them are spending as much on campaigns as we do ourselves in provincial campaigns. It seems to me a number of them have been putting themselves into debt, which is an awkward kind of thing. I would hope if you are intending to bring in legislation on term of office extensions, which would reflect that kind of responsibility in view of the total involvement by aldermanic, board of control and other members of local councils, you would also bring in legislation that would allow them election expenses just as we have them.

[4: 15J

Hon. Mr. Wells: I recall responding to a question very much similar to that a few days ago when these estimates were on. I guess that is one of the things with the estimates going over such a long time, we eventually work around to the same subjects.

I think the matter of campaign expenses, some kind of municipal election law or election act similar to the provincial election financing act that would apply to all municipal elections, was discussed. I recall that I said at the present time there are certain provisions in the Municipal Elections Act that allow municipalities to call for disclosure and to lay down certain ground rules for the conduct of municipal election campaigns.

At the present time I do not have any plans to bring in a general municipal election expenses act. I would be happy to consider it and to take a look at it. I would like to hear some viewpoints from various people on it. It of course has great ramifications for the treasuries; the provincial treasury, of course, because I guess the key to any election expenses act is the tax deductibility of contributions.

We now have a program of tax deductibility or a tax credit system for campaign contributions to federal and provincial elections, which is a very good one from our point of view, but I guess from the treasury point of view it is a fairly rich sort of tax credit system. In fact, it is a better -- what is the right word we should use? -- perhaps a better break for the individual than contributions to his church or charitable organization. The tax credit for political contributions amounts to more than the deduction from taxable income of the 10 per cent for charitable and religious purposes.

I guess the question that would have to be answered is how much further we can go and to what degree for municipal election campaigns, where you don’t have the control and the discipline of a party organization to decide that candidates officially are recognized and entitled to give out the receipts that entitle you to the tax credit and so forth.

I know my friend is just itching to get up and say: “We will immediately take the responsibility for giving out the tax receipts to NDP candidates.” You realize, of course, that probably this kind of measure, as I see it anyway, would move us one or two or three steps closer to actual complete party politics in the municipal area. It would make it very difficult for an independent; even though he might be a card-carrying member of one of our parties, if he wasn’t officially recognized perhaps and wasn’t entitled to have the contributions deducted the way we are, he would be at a distinct disadvantage to the so-called accredited person, who had the opportunity to give out receipts and allow for the tax credit on contributions.

There are all these ramifications that come up when you look at extending our system to the municipal field, a field which has traditionally been less structured and with less party discipline, certainly less party discipline than at the provincial and federal level where a person who has decided he wants to run for school hoard or council has been able to get a committee together and go ahead and run anyway, without party backing or without any official sanction of any kind. You get into all these things when you develop this particular kind of legislation. I don’t see that on the horizon at the moment. In so far as the three-year term is concerned, there is no question that we have received a number of resolutions and requests for the three-year term and as I indicated I think several times in this House and at some of the municipal associations, we have been looking at it and we are still looking at it as one of the things that it might be possible to do.

I have been testing out opinion, because I knew we were looking at it. I know we had resolutions from cities. We had the commissioners from the various regional studies recommending it -- Robarts, Stewart in the Hamilton-Wentworth study, and I think Mayo in the Ottawa study and others. I’ve been trying it out on groups I’ve been talking to. I must say I’ve been rather surprised at the result,

I asked a meeting the other night, when we were discussing municipal affairs, if they thought it would he good to move to the three-year term. Out of a group of about 75 in the room only three people thought it would be good to move to the three-year term. Most of the people thought they would like to stick with the two-year term, thank you very much.

As I say, I was surprised, because most of the municipal associations and councils are writing us suggesting we move in some way towards a three-year term in this province. We haven’t made any decision on it yet, but it’s still being looked at very carefully.

Mr. C. J. Miller: Mr. Chairman, there’s one question I asked the minister, regarding the six per cent loans and who could qualify. For example, if someone didn’t have enough insurance to cover replacement costs could he qualify for that six per cent loan in the disaster area?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll have to get the answer for the honourable member, because the loan program has been operated by other ministries in conjunction with the banks and so forth. I don’t have that information immediately available. I’m not sure we have it here, but I’ll get the answer on that.

Mr. Charlton: I’d like to go back to the minister’s statement of October 12 on equalization factors. I have a number of questions in terms of the way things will be handled. Perhaps it would be easier if I went through the questions one at a time.

The first one is, I think, probably one of the most important. The minister mentioned a number of times that officials of his ministry would be available to provide information to the municipalities in terms of how these new proposals would affect those municipalities. My question to the minister is, is the information that his ministry is prepared to supply to the municipalities specific to those municipalities? Is it just a general statement of what will happen to those municipalities or is it specific?

The reason I ask that is that the equalization factors were released, I believe, on July 14 and each municipality went through a very hairy process of attempting to evaluate specifically how those new factors would affect their municipality. The larger and regional municipalities which had access to expertise or available staff got the job done quickly and easily.

In some of the smaller municipalities the job was much more difficult. I don’t think any of us want to see the municipalities go through that whole process again in terms of determining the specific impacts. I’m just wondering if the minister’s staff are prepared to provide specific data to each municipality that will show the effects of these new proposals.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer is yes, we would be happy to provide data to each municipality to suggest to them how the program should be used for the new factors in connection with the 1980 grants and apportion the purposes.

I think it has become obvious that we can’t do that in a proper way until we have the 1980 grant announcement. In other words, we need the details of the resource equalization grant, the standard and so forth, the criteria that will apply and some of the other factors to assist the municipality. We are hoping to have that available shortly after mid November.

I indicated to the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee on Friday that if we could we would have it for the meeting which I think is set up for November 16. If we can’t, we will try to have it about a week later. I hope that then will allow our field people to be able in a more detailed way to explain the whole grant procedures to him.

As far as the apportionment is concerned, we are already embarking on the explanation of the apportionment part of the process to the various municipalities.

Mr. Charlton: I have a number of specific questions about the program itself. In our discussions with your ministry and with revenue and so on since July, most of us were of the impression that probably we would get some kind of a phase-in of the new equalization factors over several years. Obviously, this package just includes 1980 and nothing else.

Why just the one year? What is the intention of the ministry? Is it to look at what funds are available each year in order to reduce the impact of the total implementation, or are we looking at something totally new for 1981, something totally different? Obviously, the limits set on increases this year will help, but not a lot if the remainder of the total impact goes into place in 1981.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think I could put it this way. What we are doing is coping with a one-year problem here. We had talked about phase-ins at different times, but we have rejected a phasing-in process because that means that one accepts the ultimate direction those new factors lead to. I am not sure people want to accept that, which is a taxing policy matter really and more than just a use of the factors to compute the grants and apportionments.

Also, of course, there will be different factors next year. These equalization factors will not be the same because they are unfrozen and Revenue will be producing many factors. Based on our experience with the first batch of unfrozen factors, our desire is not to change taxing policy through these factors. We are not ready at this point in time to say what might be a more ultimate, long-term use of the factors or what process we want to use. So we have developed a program for this year only to allow the use of those factors for grant and apportionment purposes and to try to limit the bad effects they would have in various areas.

Mr. Charlton: A couple of your comments were rather significant. I don’t think the factors produced by this year, 1979, will be radically different from the ones we have on next year’s list, judging from the performance in the market value sector so far this year.

At any rate, I was interested in your comment that we are not necessarily accepting the direction in which the new factors are ultimately taking us. I am very interested in that comment because obviously one of the things that concerned us was the inherent shift built into those factors, away from municipalities with a fairly significant commercial-industrial base and towards municipalities with basically a residential-farm or residential-suburban base.

[4:30]

I’m quite interested to hear you say we’re not accepting that as a reality which eventually has to be reached. I would hope the minister will be discussing with us through the months to come in the House, options and alternatives to reach that point eventually.

Mr. Makarchuk: I just have a few brief comments to make to the minister regarding our favourite topic. I see my co-patriot, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, is here. This will bring to the minister’s attention the fact that he has installed a procedure to try to resolve some of the problems of amalgamation or restructuring or regionalism, whatever he wants to call it. The point is he has finally taken some steps and has instituted a procedure. We hope it may work out.

I just want to caution the minister at this time that it’s probably not going to be an easy route. From my understanding of what has gone on at some of the meetings recently, there have been some problems and some fairly adamant stands taken by various parties involved in the discussion.

I want to tell the minister that despite the rather intimidating statements that have been made at the meetings, I hope he and his officials will continue and will proceed with the plans he has to try to resolve the problem. I don’t want to see him backing off.

I commend him on the fact that finally he has taken some action; that after many years of people beating at the doors -- not necessarily while he was in that ministry but while other ministers were there -- he’s trying to work out some procedure. I want to convey to him that generally the people on municipal council, in Brantford anyway, are not necessarily the happiest group of people with the process. However, they are prepared to go through the process; they would like to see it work.

I hope from his end that sometime in the future when the flak starts getting a little heavy, and the stuff comes at him, he does not back off and decide to postpone it or try to go on some tack, at least not until this particular process he has set up now has been exhausted. I want some assurance from the minister that he will pursue the situation as he has set it up at this time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can give my friend the assurance he asks for, that the Brantford, Brantford township, Brant county annexation/amalgamation issue is, as we view it, a pilot project for testing out some procedures that we hope then could be used in other areas of the province. We have worked hard to try to get agreement on the procedures and the timetabling that could be used with those procedures.

I must pay tribute to all the local people. It hasn’t been easy. Some of them have had to give up some of their ideas of what they thought should happen. Others have agreed to things that perhaps they would have rather seen done differently. But basically, now, I think we have agreement on a process and a timetable with that process.

I’m committed to go with all of them and see it right through to the end. We are hopeful it will work out the problems in a way that is going to be satisfactory to everyone -- all those people there and the members of this House who represent those areas.

Mr. Nixon: I’m very glad the member for Brantford feels this process is an important step forward. I think the political spokesmen for the county area also find it quite acceptable. Certainly I, too, hope the minister is not going to take any action before the process reaches its end. If by any chance there has not been a complete and mutually agreeable disposition by that time, I suppose we’re right where we are now.

Having reviewed the matter one more time, I believe the process is a very interesting one. It will effectively, and I trust usefully, consume the time between now and about March 30, 1980. I forget exactly what that timetable calls for, but at that time I’m sure the member for Brantford, myself and the minister would hope that all sides will be fully satisfied with the solution and that we can then proceed to other debates and other programs for the useful development of the area.

I would simply point out to anybody who might be following this discussion that as I see it we are going to be examining the facts in the case. We are going to be treating it in some manner almost like a labour dispute or perhaps even more closely a dispute in the educational system by which, with the very best offices and the best-informed outside conciliators and advisers, the two sides will be guided towards reaching an agreement.

I suppose eventually, in the event that a mutually acceptable conclusion does not come through this procedure, we may be back here again advising each other and the minister what to do.

I hope the minister is not overconfident that both sides are going to be pleased with this. While we’re quite prepared to accept the procedure, I think with even some enthusiasm from some people I’ve spoken to, I hope the minister in the back of his mind is looking at some of the alternatives for development in the area, which we have discussed in this House previously -- joint economic development and the provision of industrial expansion and the jobs that go with it. Improvement of the assessment situation for all of the municipalities concerned can be brought about with provincial leadership, not necessarily moving municipal boundaries or redistributing the powers in any far-reaching way.

I personally have felt that the future in this problem lies not so much with the location of a new boundary between the city and the township area, but perhaps in sharing the powers associated with long-range planning in a more effective way with the urban areas.

I personally have felt that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), unlike the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs., has allowed this dispute to interfere with decisions that he certainly should have been making and that certainly should not have been delayed. There has been more than one instance of applications for a draft plan approval for small and not-so-small developments in the rural area which the city of Brantford has opposed for reasons which really don’t have much bearing on the approved official plans of the rural areas.

I personally have felt that it’s completely unjust and unfair that the power of government is used to delay unnecessarily these approvals, almost holding a disciplinary sword over the rural municipalities indicating that no approvals are going to be forthcoming until agreement is reached on both sides.

There have been a number of instances such as this that I brought to the minister’s attention, and since the debate today has been of such a uniformly friendly quality without the usual untrammelled aggression coming from some of the spokesmen, I don’t want to stimulate that kind of debate, although it may happen before we adjourn for supper and to greet the cardinal.

I just want to say to the minister that in my view he and his colleagues have exerted what I consider to be unfair pressures on the rural municipalities, not so much on them but on the citizens in the area who might very well expect developmental proposals to be at least considered by the government since they are a part of the official plan that has been accepted.

I don’t know whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been as involved in some of these problems as perhaps his colleagues, specifically the Minister of Housing and to some extent the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I felt I should indicate my dissatisfaction, at least, in that respect.

Mr. Makarchuk: I thought we would have a rather amicable discussion. However, my feeling and the feeling of, I’d say, the majority of the people in the county is that the approvals have been granted too easily and too indiscriminately without concern as to what effect they would have on the city and what effect they would have on urban sprawl and what effect they would have on the destruction of good farm land, and on the whole process of growth and development in the county.

This is the reason there is this decision to move towards annexation. Possibly, if the approvals hadn’t been granted so easily in the past, the urge or the desire to move towards annexation would not have been so great. At that time, the city would have been able, because of the urban development concentrating in the city where ordinarily it’s supposed to be, to provide the stimulus and the wherewithal to improve the downtown area as well as carry on with all the other projects of the city.

There’s also another matter of concern. This is not just of concern to Brantford; it’s of concern to a lot of other urban centres in Ontario that find themselves in the predicament of providing the services in terms of recreation, libraries, social services, housing, fire and police protection, high schools and hospitals, which cost the local taxpayers. The people living on the fringes do not pay for them. It brings about that kind of inequality in the tax rates.

Mr. Nixon: You’re trying to take over the whole county. Your argument’s as specious this year as it was last year.

Mr. Makarchuk: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who probably couldn’t get elected dog catcher if he ran for municipal office --

Mr. Nixon: I have my eye on that job, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- has never really had any experience, he has never really looked at this.

Mr. Nixon: Brantford’s trying to recover from the effects of your last municipal experience.

Mr. Makarchuk: The figures are available. The figures have been hashed over by the treasurer of the city and the treasurers of the various townships and other municipalities involved and there’s no disputing the figures. The point is that one of the problems is the urban dweller -- this is the resident who lives in Brantford -- has to pay a lot of the tax load for the people who live in the fringe areas and the townships who use the services but don’t pay for them.

In all fairness, how could you really argue that point? In all fairness, if you’re using the services or the facilities that are there, you should contribute to them no more and no less than anybody else is paying in the community. That is one of the items that is of concern.

Of course there is the other problem. If a major industrial firm wished to locate in Brantford or Brant township area, there is not at this time adequate serviceable land to provide it with a place to build its plant or its facilities. Every community that has an eye on the future, that has some concern about what’s going to happen five, six, seven or even four years down the road, plans for those kinds of things. That’s only common sense. It’s not something that’s new or something that hasn’t been done before. Most forward-looking communities do these things.

You cannot do that in Brantford right now. The point is the industrial land of the city is in small parcels. Probably the largest parcel is something like 20 acres. The others are much smaller. There’s no way a major industry could locate in those areas -- not even an industry that would require 40 or 50 acres of land, and that is not necessarily a major industry.

You should recognize it not only benefits Brantford if an industry locates there. We are in competition with other municipalities. In the first place, you want to compete on some basis of equality with other municipalities. The point is, when an industry does locate in Brantford the people who benefit from it are not just the people who work or live in Brantford, but everybody in the whole county benefits because people who work in Brantford do not necessarily all live in the city itself.

[4:45]

These are some of the major reasons this matter has to be resolved. As the minister well knows, this problem has been going on since 1950-something-or-other, long before I was even thinking of arriving in Brantford or being on the scene.

If you look at the history of the number of discussions, the number of committees and the number of reports, et cetera, that have been provided, and that have been organized to try to deal with the problem, it is a list that goes on and on forever. The words that have probably been spilled out in the cause of annexation or restructuring would probably surpass the Encyclopaedia Britannica about a thousand times.

At this time the minister has instituted a procedure. I just hope he doesn’t get intimidated by some statements that have been provided by my friend, my next-door neighbour, and that he realizes the majority of the people in the area are trying to resolve it. I may add that even Brant county council is starting to look at this thing in a different way. They too see that there is a problem which has to be dealt with.

Mr. Nixon: Since the member for Brantford is afraid I might intimidate the minister in this regard, I want to assure him that all we are dealing with is the facts. Frankly, the most effective part of the minister’s new procedure is to appoint a person known as a fact-finder. It would be a tragedy indeed if the material put forward before us in this House this afternoon and on at least five other occasions from the member for Brantford were accepted as factual.

It concerns me that the fact-finder does not seem to have sufficient independent resources to find out the facts. The procedure seems to be to ask the urban and rural areas and the government to provide the significant data they think would be useful in arriving at a decision and then more or less deciding what is factual by public debate. That may he a procedure we would support under certain circumstances, but when we are talking about the rate at which serviceable land is used up and how much may be remaining from the last expropriation, where the city gobbled up a good deal of the urban assessment, it seems to me these facts should be arrived at independently, not just by the process of debate, public or otherwise.

I think the minister is aware we have had quite a good tradition until about five years ago of close co-operation between the city and the rural area. As a matter of fact your former colleague and our good friend the former mayor of Brantford, also a former Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Beckett, when he was mayor of Brantford seemed to be able to work very closely with the rural areas and a broad spectrum of shared services was developed where the financing procedure was agreed on. In spite of what the member for Brantford has said, it has been amended quite regularly so that the rural component of the users does pay its way. Actually the argument is very much in the other direction.

We live in an area on which even Brantford doesn’t have its beady eye glued, that is, South Dumfries, although the member for Brantford feels the final solution, which I think is the way he phrases it, is for the city of Brantford simply to extend its boundaries to the edge of the county. I can assure the House that that couldn’t possibly happen unless by some joke of the gods the member for Brantford should find himself in a position where he had anything other than an opinion to express.

I also want to say, for example, that in the area out in South Dumfries where my wife and I belong to the local tennis club, the club was bought and paid for and the work carried out by local initiative and by using local funds but about 80 per cent of the membership comes from Brantford. The same is true of our arena. We built the arena by local subscription. We built it before Wintario was ever thought of and we worked hard to build it. When one goes up there on skating nights or any other occasion, I would think about 60 per cent of the people come from Brantford.

It seems to me the initiative of the people in the councils in Brantford in the member for Brantford’s time was somewhat inadequate in providing for the use of their own people.

As a debate, this could obviously go on interminably. That is why a fact-finder with an impartial point of view can actually look at the figures and decide what is necessary if we are going to approach some position of balance and equity in the payment of these services.

I can remember, talking about the Brantford arena, that in 1967 the township of South Dumfries turned over our entire centennial grant to Brantford to assist them to build their arena, because they really didn’t have one. It was by the co-operation of the whole county that they have that very fine facility. I would suggest that any hockey team from the St. George area that went in there and tried to get time would certainly be laughed out the back door.

This is a matter surely, as I say, where fact-finding is essential. What the member for Brantford puts before us as fact and what I put before this House as fact are going to have to be assessed in terms of the balance of service and what is going to be effective for all concerned.

The member for Brantford has also indicated clearly that the city of Brantford cannot undertake any more effective industrial expansion because its serviced land is all used up. Part of their program, of course, is to leapfrog a large section of the township of Brantford out into an area which the Brantford township has developed around the old airport, which was a Royal Canadian Air Force training base during the war. The city of Brantford is contemplating running long service lines through the rural area three or four miles out there.

It seems highly impractical when the minister knows -- and I’ve brought it to his attention repeatedly, which means that he does not forget it -- that there are large areas between Brantford and Paris served by the main line of the CNR, other rail connections and Highway 403 which could be readily serviced, which have had the gravel et cetera removed, which are an ideal setting for a major industrial site, well drained, readily serviced and at a crossroads of communication.

The member for Brantford has already said an industrial development benefits many municipalities and it is not necessary to live in Brantford to benefit from an expansion there. By the same token, I would say to the minister that one doesn’t need to live in any specific municipality to benefit from a planned industrial expansion in the area, which should go in the large multi-acre worked-out gravel pit. That is the area where provincial initiative is going to be necessary. It will never be developed by the local municipalities because they don’t have the resources.

Here is an instance where the minister might very well leave his mark on municipal affairs, He may choose to do so by the exercise of his undoubted diplomatic powers and abilities. If we really want to move forward in what I would consider to be a more useful way, I hope he would consider some of the alternatives in addition to the one we are presently exercising.

Mr. Makarchuk: I am glad to hear the member for South Dumfries is so well aware of what is going on in South Dumfries. What he doesn’t realize is the fact that the council of South Dumfries is very perturbed about the fact that other people use its arenas and are not paying taxes and it is really actually talking very seriously of involving itself in some type of an amalgamation process. It rather amazes me that the honourable member with all the facts doesn’t know what is going on in his own council.

Mr. Nixon: I think South Dumfries could do better things.

Mr. Makarchuk: I should also like to point out to my friend that it is very nice of him to talk about patches of serviced land in various places in the county -- or rather I should say land that’s available for industrial growth. What he doesn’t realize yet is the fact that water and the crud don’t flow uphill. We have to provide sewers and we have to provide services. When we provide sewers we have to make sure they will run to a sewage treatment plant. That is something he hasn’t really discovered yet. Those are matters of concern.

We point out the fact that the land that has to be taken over, moving in the direction of the airport, is the area that can be serviced. There is a trunk sewer in place ready to go across the river which would lead to the sewage treatment plant. This area can he serviced by gravity without having to put in expensive pumping stations.

Mr. Nixon: Five miles away.

Mr. Makarchuk: Not only the cost of the pumping station but also the operation that has to he added on to it. These are factors that he doesn’t know about. He talks about my stint in council. I was chairman of executive, chairman of real estate, chairman of development, chairman of technical advisory committee, chairman of personnel, vice-chairman of a few other committees; I sat on the planning boards of both Brant and Brantford. In the process, during that period of time, I may add, we built an aquatic centre, we built a recreational centre, we started home improvement programs. One of the things I am extremely proud of is that the city of Brantford under my chairmanship managed to build single-family homes at $32,000 a home. This is something that the great and mighty province of Ontario, with all its resources, has yet to do in this province.

I have no apologies to make about my stint on council. One of the things I learned when I was there was to look at the facts, to look at what was going on. I would suggest that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk do a little bit of time on council and perhaps he might find out what he is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Having listened to this last exchange for the last few minutes, Mr. Chairman, I think I will go hack and meet with Brantford city council and Brant county council. It seems rather tame compared to what I hear here. That’s actually just a facetious remark.

I appreciate the suggestions that have been put forward. I am not going to comment because I believe the process itself has a good possibility of succeeding and hopefully we will straighten out a lot of the problems and a lot of the solutions that are looked for in that area. I will take under advisement all the advice that’s been given. Hopefully out of the process will come the answers to what has been a subject that has been talked about in the estimates certainly as long as I have been in this ministry.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the minister about a problem I suspect he at least knows about and has assigned one of his people to work on. That is the problem of a small community of almost 4,000 people called Chapleau.

The minister may know that Chapleau was put under supervision very recently by his ministry. Actually, the town requested it and it was complied with in his ministry. An official from his ministry in Sudbury is looking after the problem. It’s very complex and it’s serious. The debt of that municipality is, I understand, approaching $2 million. For a town that size, it is of course more than one would wish.

The thing I wanted to raise with the minister is that it’s not 10 years ago that Chapleau came out from under supervision and launched itself on its own. Now here we are back under supervision again.

There are some things that worry me about what’s going to happen now. Admittedly the debts are substantial. There are a lot of unanswered questions about which I would just as soon not comment at this time because the minister’s people are still going through the documentation.

But I would like to say one thing to the minister. I suspect that from this point on, every time there’s a required service in Chapleau the town will be told its debt is so high the ministry simply cannot approve any further expenditures. I understand why the ministry would do that, but there are a number of projects there that simply cannot just die. I will list them very briefly.

One is the completion of the Cedar Grove Lodge, a senior citizens’ nursing home complex. It’s brand new -- it was opened a year ago -- but last spring the roof started falling in and pieces of the walls started falling out and the insulation is inadequate and I believe there are lawsuits involved with it. I was in there on Saturday and saw for myself what was happening. Next spring, it’s going to happen all over again as the ice freezes in the eavestroughs. Water is going to come through the walls and the ceiling, and we are going to have the same problems all over again.

So even though there are financial problems in that community, something like that cannot be allowed to continue. It has simply got to be fixed. The problem is going to get worse before it gets better, and at this point absolutely nothing is happening. The municipality is sitting there as though transfixed because of the supervision of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[5:OO]

Secondly, a bridge and road are required over to what is called the Planer area, which is an area where the sawmills are and which is the home for almost 1,000 people. I could describe that area to the minister, but I only wish he had the kind of schedule that would allow him to come to Chapleau and take a look at some of the problems in the community. They are very serious.

The sewer and water problems in the area known as the Planer are unacceptable in Ontario today. There is an area right outside the town boundaries which has the sawmills in it, and they are not even within the boundaries of the town. Why not? Why is that not part of the town of Chapleau? That simply has to be brought in, both for increased assessment purposes and so proper services can be provided for those people.

In the spring, because the roads and streets are so bad the people park their cars and carry their groceries through the mud to their trailers or to their homes. That is ludicrous and something has got to be done about that.

There has been a lot of wealth come out of that part of Ontario that has benefited all the rest of Ontario, and when I go in there and I see those kinds of conditions I just find it totally unacceptable. When I was over in that part of the community on Saturday, I had to drive very carefully to get my car around the potholes, which were filled with water. It was very muddy, and it is just a complete disgrace that has been allowed to continue all these years.

I can see the municipality throwing up its hands now and saying, as it has for 20 years, quite frankly, “We can’t do anything about it because we are under supervision and the minister won’t approve these kinds of expenditures.” I am not looking to increase the tax burden on the people of Chapleau, but I want to tell the minister that something like that is plainly and simply unacceptable. I think an argument could be made that the minister should look at Chapleau as a special case, and the immediate area outside of Chapleau known as the Planer area, and say: “This has gone on long enough. This situation is too bad to be allowed to continue. We have got to move in there with some kind of special assistance.” I really urge the minister to do that.

The water over there is in bad shape and the sewage system is nonexistent, and yet there are almost 1,000 people there. That simply is not appropriate in Ontario as we head into the 1980s.

It is the strangest problem. Even within the municipality, I will tell the minister how strange it is. A fellow came to see me and he said: “Look at this. I just received a letter. I have been living here for 10 years in this house, paying my rent to somebody, and I get a notice from a government ministry that says I have got to vacate the property and remove all the buildings and clean up the property because the property is not mine, and there have been no taxes paid. Not only that, my next-door neighbour has had the same problem.”

I went and talked to him. Sure enough, two people on the same piece of property have paid taxes, have lived there, built their homes there, and are now being told to get out and to destroy the buildings in which they live. That is unacceptable, and it has been allowed to continue because any ministry of government has refused to move in there and say: “This is ludicrous. We have got to get a proper plan of subdivision for the whole area -- not a part of the area, the whole area that is known as the Planer, whether it is within the boundaries of the town or not.” That is something at which the minister should take a look.

I have talked to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) about it until I am blue in the face. You might as well talk to a tree. Nothing happens. I urge the minister to have his people take a look at that. He has some people in the Sudbury area who know the problem, they understand the problem very well. I don’t expect him to know it in detail, but he has people in his ministry who do know it and who do know it is a serious problem, and I would ask that he talk to those people with a view to resolving that problem.

There is one other minor point that has nothing to do with Chapleau. I wonder if the minister could take a look, when he is talking to municipal officials, about the whole principle of extending sewer and water lines within existing communities. I will give the House an example of what I mean, and I am sure it must happen to other municipalities around Ontario.

A municipality has a number of small communities within it; it could be a rural kind of municipality. The one I live in is the town of Walden, which has a number of sprawling small communities in it. The municipality, through the region, with the blessing of the region, the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ministry of the Environment and everything, extends its sewer and water line. Everything is going fine. What they are doing is extending them into new communities and bypassing existing ones.

It doesn’t seem right to me that people live in a community for many years, own homes and property, and see sewer and water lines going into new communities and bypassing them. I don’t think that is fair.

Mr. Philip: It’s suicide for the voters in those communities.

Mr. Laughren: I would be outraged if I was in that community, had been there for years and saw services going into a brand new community. In that one in particular, their wells are polluted with sodium. That means that people who suffer from hypertension or heart disease cannot drink the water. They have had letters from the Sudbury district health unit telling them they cannot drink the water. They have no proper sewage disposal. What happens? The lines are extended to other areas.

I know the minister can stand up and say that the region establishes its priorities, and that’s true. I’m not putting the blame on the minister. I’m just saying somebody should talk to the municipalities across Ontario and say, “Look, for heaven’s sake, if you’re going to extend sewer and water lines, look after existing communities before you start directing services into brand-new ones.” That surely doesn’t make any sense at all.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Are there any other speakers on this vote?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I was just going to comment on the comments about Chapleau. I appreciate the comments. As my friend knows, the municipality is under supervision. There are three of our people working full-time in there now -- Ted Foster, Cord Wilkinson and Bill Downing. They’re all doing various jobs. As their reports and work are completed, in a month or so, I think we’ll have some idea of what needs to be done.

We’ll then look to see what the solutions are for that particular area to make sure the people of the area are not deprived of the kinds of services my friend has spoken about. But it’s going to take at least a month to see exactly where everything stands at the moment, and from there we’ll see where we go, particularly in regard to --

Mr. Laughren: Cedargrove, that’s an immediate problem.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Cedargrove Home, as you mentioned, is an immediate problem. But I understand, just from a quick discussion about it, that it’s not an easy problem to solve. It’s rather complex and there are a number of ramifications to it.

We’re going to try to get to the bottom of it so that it can be corrected and hopefully repaired and put into operation.

Mr. Laughren: Very briefly, I’d be very happy if I could extract a commitment from the minister to have his people take a look at that area I was describing, which is just outside the boundaries of Chapleau, the Planer area, because I think they’re serious. It’s a matter of time before they run into more serious health problems because of sewage and water and so forth.

As far as Cedargrove Home goes, the minister is right, it is complex. But I don’t think the construction problems are as complex as perhaps the legalities involved. If the work isn’t done now -- better insulation put in and the problem solved with leakage -- it’s going to be too late; we’ll have that same problem next spring.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll take a look at the other problems.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I know that most of the general items have been covered probably two or three times by different members who have spoken. My colleague from Wentworth has put forward many proposals and suggestions which I think would benefit municipal government in this province. I rise to reiterate some of those suggestions and to ask some further questions on some matters of principle of the minister.

I am concerned, as I’m sure the minister is, that AMO has dropped out of PMLC which, if AMO stays out, will be a very ineffective organization, I’m sure the minister would agree with me on that, because AMO is the large one of the three organizations which have been in that group.

It’s fair to say that AMO has dropped out largely because of this government’s policies, or lack of them, with regard to municipal financing. Year after year after year they have been led down the garden path. The promises that have been made to them have not been lived up to. As a result, they have become so frustrated, as most municipal people have across this province, that they have little faith in the co-operative procedure with this government and they have, at least temporarily, opted out of the structure which has been set up for discussion between the provincial government and municipalities.

I would like the minister, if he would in reply to me and to others who raised this issue, to give some idea of his philosophy regarding the financing of local government. Should local government be financed primarily out of property tax? Should the amount of money which is transferred to local government be tied to the revenues of this province or the expenditures of this province? Should it he tied to the percentage increases in municipal expenditures?

The other provinces in this nation, generally, are moving towards some form of guaranteed revenue-sharing. Although this government has rejected that, I would like to hear what the minister’s philosophy is. Is it just going to be done ad hoc from year to year, based on whatever the government feels it can afford to give the municipalities or how much pressure they put on the government? Is that the amount that is going to be transferred?

I realize you are in bed with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in this regard; you don’t have autonomy. Nevertheless, you are part of the government, and it seems to me you should give an explanation of what your personal philosophy is as the relatively new -- not so new -- Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in this regard.

There cannot really be any effective long-term planning as to municipal governments unless they have some idea of where their revenues are going to come from and how much they are going to have one year following the other. So, I hope you will make some greater elaboration than you have to this time about what your intentions are.

I know there is a study going on, although the outcome of that study may now be in doubt when the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has taken the steps that it has taken. In any event, the final decision rests with your government. It doesn’t matter what reports have been made; there have been many of these before on what should be done with regard to transfers from the provincial government to local government.

We can have another report which may bring in certain recommendations. But unless you have some philosophy in your government and have some general policy and principles that should be followed, these studies are just a postponement of the inevitable ad hockery which has been the situation, certainly since I have been in this Legislature and, for that matter, for the 21 years or so that I was in municipal life prior to that time.

I am not unaware of the financial difficulties the province finds itself in. Maybe it is in those financial difficulties at least partly for the same reason that the municipalities have no assurance and there has been no long-term planning by your government either for financing its own expenditure or for giving some sort of guaranteed policy and financing program to the municipalities. I would like to hear something further from the minister on that.

There is a second issue I wanted to touch on briefly, which has been discussed many times in this House, every year in the estimates and every time that municipal government is discussed here for any reason. Your ministry or your predecessor in the combined ministry put out in 1976 a document called Regional Government in Perspective: A Financial Review.

That document showed rather clearly -- and I don’t think anybody could put any other interpretation on it -- that the municipal costs within municipal government and the municipal expenditures in the areas where they had this extra tier of government were substantially higher on the average than they were where they had a lesser tier of government.

[5:15]

The minister will recall that I extrapolated those figures, made a comparison and came up with a report of my own which showed that it was not really due to the growth, although that, of course, has a bearing on it. It was said that because the municipalities in regional government were growing more rapidly, obviously their costs were higher. In fact we compared cities of comparable growth. One was in a regional government and one was without. It showed that the costs were substantially higher generally for those within regional government.

The question I would like to put to the minister is, would he bring that report up to date. It seems to me if these figures were correct at that time and if what was shown at that time is being borne out today -- and I suspect it is and that there are substantially higher expenditures and higher costs in municipalities in regional governments -- I think we should know it and the minister should know it.

They weren’t minor at the time. Those additional costs were perhaps in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent to 25 per cent higher for those municipalities. I know the problems the government has with regard to regional government. What do you do in place of it, if you let it go? There has to be some sort of co-ordination between municipalities in the same geographical district where they have contiguous boundaries and contiguous urban areas. But having said that, it is still important to know whether there is an excessive cost connected to the extra tier of government.

This document showed that there was and that it was substantial. I suggest to the minister that it’s now three and a half years since that document was tabled. I would ask if there is any move within his ministry or will he give consideration to doing the same kind of report and bringing it up to date to the present time.

Another matter that has some relationship to this and which I wanted to touch on briefly was the matter raised by my friend from Nickel Belt with regard to the installation of water and sewers and the planning that goes with them. Municipal people are generally unhappy with the planning procedures as we have them now, with the lack of co-ordination in other aspects of planning, such as water and sewer, which involves the Ministry of the Environment, and with the fact that they have to make all these municipal decisions and discuss them with the minister. The Minister of Housing then has the responsibility for the planning.

There is no doubt that the classic example of this is in the Niagara region, where at the same time as the Niagara region was passing an official regional plan -- how sincere it was has sometimes been brought into question -- which was to preserve the prime agricultural land, the Ministry of the Environment was promoting, not just acquiescing in, the installation of water and sewers in all the area below the escarpment. We now have water and sewers in the planning stage or actually constructed all the way from Niagara-on-the-Lake -- one of the other cleanups -- to Grimsby. It certainly is clear that if you’re going to put in those kinds of services, development is going to follow those services almost regardless of what the plan says.

Here we have a situation where the government through one ministry was saying to them, “You should preserve the prime agricultural land,” while another industry was saying to them, “The water and sewer services must go in in this location.”

As I say, the municipal people themselves are pretty unhappy about this. They’re pretty unhappy also, Mr. Minister, as you must know, about having so many levels of planning, certainly down in the Niagara Peninsula. Not only is it frustrating when they have to go through four different bodies, but it’s pretty ineffective. There is no end result soon enough to accomplish what the municipalities would like to accomplish. I’m wondering if there is any move in your ministry to have transferred to it the provincial planning functions. It seems to me that there should be and it should, in fact, include the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

It is almost impossible for anyone who has land, or a municipality that has to go through the local municipality, to deal with its plans there, then to the region. In fact, often it goes to the region first, or simultaneously, and then it has to get approval from the Niagara Escarpment Commission and it also has to get approval from this government. I suggest that if the minister is looking for some ways of saving money he might want to take a look at a four-tier level of planning, which is not only ineffective but is very costly.

I would ask the minister to give some consideration to transferring back to his ministry responsibility for planning. There is no question that the municipal people would like to have that. They have to deal with you on so many other items, and planning is extremely important regardless of other aspects of municipal operations. It is extremely important to them all. To have it separated into a separate ministry, I suggest to the minister, is not a very effective way of operating the planning process.

So on these three items I’ll be glad to hear what you have to say in principle. I don’t expect that the minister is going to make any major pronouncements because of these questions, but I would say it is pretty important to know, one, what your philosophy is regarding the financing of local government and the share that the province should pay, and, two, the method by which you can give some continuity to it.

It’s also important that we find out what is happening financially with regard to municipalities in regional government. Is it a costly operation that we can’t really afford? Finally, can the whole matter of the planning process be brought more closely to his ministry? I’ll be glad to hear the minister’s answers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I’ll try to be brief, although the subjects that my friend has dealt with could certainly form the basis for a whole afternoon or evening session here to talk about some of the fundamental areas in this portfolio and in municipal government.

Let me deal first with his last question.

No, we have not considered bringing the planning function and those functions that are now the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing into this ministry. That has not been considered and it is not the government’s intention to combine those into this ministry at this time. I won’t go any further in discussing that at this time. Perhaps at some other time that may be a general discussion that could be carried on.

Certainly, the point that the planning function and dealing with the provincial government by municipalities on this matter is an important one and one that probably takes as much time as their dealings with us in other municipal areas is a valid assertion. Of course, there are many other ministries in the government that also deal on a regular and continuing basis and have programs with the municipalities. It’s impossible to have them all in one ministry. However we can’t sit still and say that because it’s done this way at this time it should never be done in any different way.

The suggestion that planning and the functions of the Intergovernmental Affairs ministry should be combined at some time is one that I’m sure will be looked at.

I’m working in reverse order now: in regard to the comments about the financing of regional governments and the cost of regional government and whether costs are increasing and the whole area of cost-benefit of regional government, I appreciate the report that he has quoted from and drawn to our attention. I think that rather than update that report, as I indicated a few days ago I would rather take some of the methodology from the Waterloo regional study and try to apply that to some of the other regional governments and use the criteria and the methodology developed there. I think that it’s perhaps a little more up to date and can be useful in getting at some of the information we need to be able to assess regional government.

As the members probably know, in the Waterloo study, using their methodology -- and the study’s a very interesting one -- they come to the conclusion that 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 government. Third, after four years of regional government the average per-thousand property tax is lower in real dollars than it was four years prior to regional government.

We’ve taken the methodology used in the Waterloo area and applied some of it to the member’s own region, the region of Niagara, and hopefully we’ll have some kind of document ready for presentation very shortly to everyone who would like to see it. It gives some interesting comparisons on costs over the last 12 months.

Mr. Swart: It should be province-wide -- all the regions.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’d have to take the various regional ones and then take some of the province-wide figures and pull them all together. Certainly I’m just as interested as the member is in having some more data and we’re looking at the various ways of getting it. I’m saying it may not just be updating that particular report, but rather getting some different types of financial information out so we can use it to assess the costs of regional government.

The other matter we talked about is the member asked about my philosophy of financing local government or municipalities. My philosophy would be that local government, municipal government, should be financed from basically three sources of revenue: the property tax, transfers from provincial revenue sources, and local fees and charges, which make up quite a sizeable amount of the revenue the local municipalities gain. Basically from those three sources see the costs of local government being financed.

The levels of property tax and provincial transfer, of course, are very important. Naturally, none of us believes in an excessive property tax. We also believe that the property tax needs some other method of correction -- and in this case I’m talking about property tax credit, which I see as a matter of correcting what can be a very regressive tax.

In other words, we’ve taken the property tax and, I believe, made it less regressive by the introduction of the property tax credit. We have indicated that we believe we should move even further in that area to alleviate property tax for certain people through a property tax credit and therefore remove a large measure of the regressivity from the property tax.

That’s the one area where provincial funding is used to offset property tax. That’s done through the tax credit, a system which doesn’t directly involve the municipality.

The other method is the revenue transfer: provincial funds to the municipalities to allow them certain moneys to operate the functions they must carry on.

[5:30]

By far the largest amount of money in this province is transferred on a conditional basis as opposed to an unconditional basis. I suppose we should be working towards more unconditional, less conditional. That, in itself, presents some real problems.

When you look at what other provinces have been doing in this particular area you find that no one I can recall has approached the area of transfers, revenue guarantees, whatever you want to call them, in a manner that has completely covered all the transfers. We were attempting to develop a formula that covered the totality of transfers from the province to the municipality, all the conditional and unconditional grants lumped into a formula that would set overall total, bulk amounts. Most other provinces have revenue transferring agreements but they do not cover the whole gamut of transfers in their particular provinces, as I recall.

I also recall, notwithstanding those kinds of agreements -- revenue transfer agreements, legislated formulae, whatever -- other provinces have still come along and in a unilateral manner done things which have affected the finances of municipalities. I recall the province of British Columbia decided to freeze mill rates or control mill rates. There were certain controls brought in last December, quite unilaterally and quite without consultation, notwithstanding a revenue sharing agreement, much to the chagrin, as I recall, or at least the amazement and at least mild anger, of the municipal associations in that province.

Having abandoned the Edmonton commitment, as we all agreed we would last year, what we were working on here was some kind of formula, in the first instance a short-term formula, that would let everyone know where we stood in so far as provincial-municipal transfers were concerned.

Let me back up just a minute. In abandoning the Edmonton commitment last year we announced what our formula would be for transfers; we announced we would pay to the municipalities grants at a rate of increase the same as the rate of increase on our own provincial expenditures.

Mr. Swart: And you welched on that one.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Did we welch on it?

Mr. Swart: Yes, you did; unilaterally.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me just tell you. We announced it would be the same rate and that rate would be five per cent. Then we had a bit of a disagreement with the municipalities over what would be included in the increase in provincial expenditures.

As we all know, those transfers fall into two categories, conditional and unconditional.

Mr. Swart: The original statement is the same rate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I recall the original statement was five per cent; and then the Municipal Liaison Committee, after hearing our announcement, said the MLC on behalf of the municipalities of Ontario called upon the government to increase transfers to municipalities by six per cent rather than the five per cent announced, a difference of $18 million.

The Association of Municipal Organizations also sent a letter, as I recall. I was just reading from the MLC statement:

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

That is AMO’s wording, not our own. They were saying, although we could argue the provincial rate of expenditure growth with which we were comparing our increase to municipalities was five per cent, we should have included certain other pension matters --

Mr. Swart: It should have included the capital.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- therefore the rate of growth was six per cent. They objected and suggested we change it.

The fact of the matter is when I look now at the total 1979-80 provincial transfers to municipalities, which is $1.818 million, I see we have actually increased the amount over the 1978-79 figure by 6.6 per cent.

We haven’t really welched on the municipalities. We had a little skirmish at the time. They suggested we raise it to six per cent and when it is all straightened out we’ve actually gone a little better and we are transferring something over six per cent to the municipalities in the current transfer year for 1979. Surely the honourable member doesn’t disagree with that.

Mr. Swart: Give me an opportunity and see.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All right, I’ll give the honourable member an opportunity in a minute. I’ll give the honourable member an opportunity to tell me about that right now before I go on to the next part.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, if I may, very briefly. The Ontario government and the minister have said they would accept the formula as proposed by the PMLC, which was that they would receive an increase at the same percentage rate as the increase in expenditures of the Ontario government. I think I am right in stating that. It was agreed to by the government.

But when the actual statement was made in this House, the provincial government excluded from that percentage increase their increase in capital expenditures. So in fact it brought it down to five per cent. Their estimate then was five per cent, although the provincial expenditures if the capital were included would have been six per cent. Until the statement was made by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) there was no suggestion that capital would be excluded and therefore they would get a lower percentage.

Granted, I am willing to concede that the minister gave 6.6 per cent last year, but he knows and I know that that amount of money which he put in the budget is an estimate and every previous year it had been up or down. This year it was up. If he follows the policy of previous years he would in fact recover that in the following year. I hope you are not going to do that, Mr. Minister, and perhaps that would be a good question to ask you right now. Are you going to try to recover what was considered in previous years an overpayment?

When I say the minister welched, I confirm that statement because the thing he was asked for and the thing he agreed to was that he would transfer them an increase equal to the increase in provincial government expenditures. At no time in the beginning did he state that was excluding capital. I think he will agree with me that that statement is correct.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That, I think, is correct. We did not lay down what the ground rules were for those areas of provincial government --

Mr. Swart: It was increase of provincial expenditures.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- operating budgets we were comparing the percentages with. I’m not sure it was capital we excluded. I can’t find the details here quickly, but as I recall it was the pension plans that we excluded.

Mr. Swart: No, no; that was the year before.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no; I mean even last year.

Mr. Swart: It wasn’t; I’m sorry. It was a 12 per cent increase in capital expenditures which was excluded.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’d have to look and see, but it runs in my mind that it was the increases in pension plans, because that is certainly one area where we have no control over what the increase will be. We do have a control over capital; we do have a control over the direct operating budgets of the ministries here; but we have no control over the increase in the pension plan contributions because there are various other factors which control those. I can’t believe we ever had a 12 per cent increase in capital. But anyway, the point I am making though, really, is that I accept the statement that in that statement that we would increase our transfers to the municipalities at the same rate as we increase our own direct operating expenses we didn’t lay down the ground rules last year for what would be included. In that we ran into a difference of opinion afterwards. We maintained five per cent. They said it should be six per cent. All I am saying is that you at least have to accede to the fact that we did finally agree to transfer the percentage of six and a little more.

Mr. Swart: You won’t take any of that back this year? Right?

Hon. Mr. Wells: So in actual fact we have lived up to what our commitment was and what was accepted last year. We lived up to our commitment taken either way.

Mr. Swart: You won’t recover any of that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no. We are not going to recover that.

Now we get around to this year. This year we said (a) we would set up a committee and (b) we would try to work out some kind of formula. We set up the committee with our ministry and the municipal people. We worked out a formula. We all agreed to take it back for presentation and it was taken back to the municipal side and agreed to. It was taken back to cabinet, and cabinet, for the reasons that have been outlined to the municipalities, was not agreeable to accepting a formula at this time.

The idea of a formula, an agreement, some kind of arrangement for transfers, is not dead and I have told the municipal people this. It’s still a very viable thing, but this year for two reasons it was not possible for us to agree to it. One reason was the equalization factor program which we were working on at the time and which entailed extra money above and beyond the normal transfers and which has now been pinned down to somewhere in the $50-million category for education and municipal. The second reason was our uncertainty as a government as to what our transfers will be from the federal government.

Someone from the municipal side then said to me, “The mortgage deductibility plan has been announced so your uncertainty is over.” I say that’s not so. That’s only one part --

Mr. Swart: You can never trust them up there.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We can trust them up there. We trust them and we believe the mortgage deductibility plan as it has been announced will not impinge upon provincial revenues. That’s what they said and that’s how it will work out. But what we don’t know is what the total transfers to municipalities are going to be.

We know they have a policy of trying to cut the federal deficit. We don’t know whether their cutting of the federal deficit is going to involve cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. We certainly hope not. We certainly will fight to make sure that doesn’t happen. But the Treasurer of Ontario has got to develop a budget of his own shortly that is going to be based upon certain federal transfers. He and the cabinet are just a little leery about tying themselves into a formula with some of these components which provide our revenue not completely answered.

That’s the reason we didn’t decide to go ahead with the formula that had been agreed upon but the formula idea is still alive. It’s still a viable thing. We still want to work with the municipalities to develop it and I am hopeful we can over the next year. I also want to underline that the development of the formula was very helpful to us in developing the kind of transfers that will apply for this year.

The MLC has said to us by resolution that although I offered it an opportunity to sit down without a formula and negotiate what kind of transfers we had had this year, it rejected that and said: “No, you tell us what the transfers will be. If we don’t have a formula, we are not interested in sitting down and discussing the transfers.” So we are not going to do that and presumably we will have a meeting of the MLC, as I announced a little earlier in this debate, about mid-November and outline what the plans will be for this coming year.

But I am hopeful we are still going to be working towards some kind of formula-sharing arrangement -- an agreement that gives some stability to it. Certainly it is part of my philosophy of municipal financing which I indicated to you is based upon provincial transfers -- in other words, money raised on provincial revenue sources to support municipalities and the property tax base. I believe the latter is necessary. I believe we would stagnate and dry up our municipalities if all their money was raised by us and transferred to them. They have to have some taxing source, so therefore the property tax becomes their taxing source.

[5:45]

But in a like manner, I believe that to give to the municipalities some of the taxing sources we have would be to needlessly duplicate and complicate a taxing system which is complicated enough in this country. In other words, to give municipalities the right to have other taxing sources and to carry out the administration of those programs themselves would needlessly complicate procedures.

It would be far better to work out an arrangement, a formula, a guarantee, whereby we raise money though those same methods provincially and in an equitable way pass them on to the municipalities. That is the kind of thing I think makes a lot more sense, and we will be working towards that.

Of course, as my friend has said, as an offshoot of that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario became a little exercised -- I guess rightly so -- when the formula wasn’t accepted and said -- and I think this was a mistake, but they are entitled to do it -- “If this formula isn’t accepted by the government within 30 days, we will pull out of the PMLC.”

Mr. Swart: They can only take it so many times, you know.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I know, but they had a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis). They met with the Premier and they all sat on one side of the table and the Premier and a number of the cabinet ministers were all sitting on the other side. When they made this sort of threat to the Premier I recall him saying, “If any group came into your councils and made that same kind of threat, what would you tell them?” Of course they all kind of looked around and to a man said, “We would tell them, ‘Go on, get out the door. You don’t come and make threats like that.’ We wouldn’t accept a group that comes to council and says, ‘If you don’t do what we want within 30 days, we are going to do this or that and take some kind of dire action.’”

I think it was rather an unfortunate thing for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to do. I recognize their feelings. They worked hard on the program, as did the other members of MLC, but then so did the other members and they didn’t take that same attitude.

Mr. Epp: And the Premier then reminded them of the other grants that they were getting for the municipalities and by implication --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Listen. The Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario and the Rural Ontario Municipal Association didn’t take that same attitude, and the Municipal Liaison Committee is still there. I am fully hopeful that within another couple of meetings the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will be back in meeting with us, because we need them there. They represent a large and important group of municipalities in this province. I hope they will be back, fully participating in the municipal-provincial discussion process, because that is important.

If you are asking my personal opinion I might say I am not sure we have completely the right process at the present time or the right format for the process, but we do need a process. We need a process of consultation between the province and the municipalities and we need a good process. That will be one of the things I will certainly attempt to get back on the rails again. I hope the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is back in there and is there with the MLC.

I really think we need a body that brings all the associations and the divergent views of those associations together, because they do represent different viewpoints. From what I have seen, the Municipal Liaison Committee has been a good catalyst to bring the varying points of view together and to synthesize them so that when they come to government with certain proposals they have been able to sort out a lot of the different opinions before we get them, which is very helpful to us.

Mr. Cunningham: In the time left I would like to favour the minister with some continuing concerns I have about the structure of regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth region.

Over a year ago -- the present minister was not the minister at the time -- I know cabinet was favoured with the Stewart commission report, which basically suggested a one-tier system of regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. This, of course, met with a great deal of opposition by the outlying communities and received the support both of the former member for Wentworth and myself. The government, in its wisdom, decided that the report should not be implemented. I would hope it was their disposition that it would not only not be implemented at this time but not be implemented, period. What disappointed me in that particular report was, I think, a sell-out on the part of the commission on behalf of the city of Hamilton, or at least on behalf of the mayor, maybe, and some of the council in Hamilton.

Regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area has been a failure. It certainly isn’t the minister’s fault. He was involved in other areas of discipline while these discussions on regional government took place, but I’m sure he’ll recall what has happened. The litany of failure is one I could go through but I don’t have enough time this evening,

It is a failure for a number of reasons. It’s a failure primarily because the costs continue to go up and services decrease proportionately. People in the outlying areas don’t know why they are paying the excessive amount of taxes that they’re paying yet receiving the limited amount of benefits they’re receiving. To draw to his attention an example, I’m sure the minister would be familiar with the part of highway 6 that enters on to highway 403. Adjacent to that portion of highway 6 is a subdivision called Pleasantview. It used to belong to the township of Flamboro and now belongs to the town of Dundas. They have no sidewalks; they have no sewers. Their water comes from wells, or it’s trucked in now because the wells have been destroyed by the lack of sewers. It’s not particularly well planned. The services are non-existent. Bus service is poor. Yet these people, as a result of regional government, are now paying taxes that are just absolutely incredible. They receive very little for what they’re paying. That particular situation is common throughout the region.

Regional government has been no bargain for the city of Hamilton, either. I think if we had a legitimate, honest, open plebiscite in the city of Hamilton, many of the residents would respond accordingly and indicate to you that they are not in favour of regional government.

Another reason for its failure is the imbalance that exists between the city and the outlying communities. That imbalance can afford the city of Hamilton the opportunity of getting what they want at regional council level. To the best of my knowledge, short of a walkout at regional council, which nobody wants to see, there is no method of defence for the small outlying communities if the city of Hamilton chooses to take a course of action.

I would suggest if we were going to have regional government that the city of Burlington should have been included to at least arrest that imbalance as it currently exists.

The primary reason for the failure of regional government in that area is a lack of community interest that exists in the region itself. I would suggest to you that on the far eastern border of the region bordering, say, Saltfeet, which is represented by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs), that that area might find its interests more closely allied with Grimsby and that Niagara area.

In Glanbrook they may seem closer to Niagara or they may seem closer to Haldimand-Norfolk. The member shakes his head. After he’s been there a little longer he may know.

In my particular area, the town of Ancaster doesn’t have a great deal of community interest with the city of Hamilton, notwithstanding the fact that it abuts it; likewise with Dundas. As we go further back into Flamboro -- and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk’s (Mr. Nixon) farm overlaps the township of Flamboro, which means he has the luxury of paying taxes in both regions -- I would suggest to you that people in that particular area have absolutely no community interest with the city of Hamilton, Stoney Creek or whatever.

One particular problem is the lack of political accountability that exists. The chairman is not elected and does not, in my view --

Mr. Martel: You could have voted for that.

Mr. Cunningham: We didn’t have a vote on it here.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes, you could have. We moved the amendment. You voted against it.

Mr. Cunningham: The chairman is not elected and is not politically accountable to the people in the area.

Mr. Martel: Your memory is short.

Mr. Cunningham: Above and beyond that, the structure affords some lack of accountability. If I am particularly displeased as a taxpayer in the village of Waterdown when a decision has been made by the mayor of Stoney Creek, I have no opportunity of indicating my displeasure with his course of action at election time, none whatsoever.

The solution to correct this mess is not going to be easy. I would suggest to you that I think the time is right, now, for some consideration to phase back the powers that Bill 155 has bestowed upon the upper tier to the local municipalities. Inherent in that suggestion is my view that today, now more than ever, we need less government, but government that is more accountable. It remains my view that the outlying municipalities and the city of Hamilton itself have the ability to look after their own affairs. That is not to say there couldn’t be some voluntary co-operation -- specifically, possibly in the area of regional planning -- but it remains my view that each and every municipality in that region could operate on its own today.

You will get continued pressure from the mayor of Hamilton, who in my opinion is not accurately representing the views of the city. I would suggest that in future, maybe after the November elections next year -- and I anticipate that you will probably still be the minister at that time -- you may be in receipt of some plebiscites that may take place during those elections. I think if those plebiscites are clearly worded they may suggest this experiment in regional government be concluded; that the powers be restored to the local municipalities; that the grant structures be re-established as they were; and that we get back to a more clear, more simple, more equitable, and, most important, a more politically accountable method of local government.

I hope you will take those factors into consideration if you receive such a plebiscite.

Mr. Grande: I doubt I will have the time I should be devoting to this topic. Therefore, since I cannot see that clock and have no watch, I will be adjourning the debate and will continue next time.

I want to jog the minister’s mind a little bit on the borough of York, part of which I have the pleasure to represent in this Legislature. I want to inform the minister that the mill rate of the borough of York this year is probably going to be increasing to about 11 mills -- at least the difference between the Metro average mill rate and the borough of York rate is going to be 11 mills.

I know that back in May of this year the minister sent a letter to the mayor of that borough saying you had assessed its particular needs and you were going to send for the one-year-only assessment the sum of $280,000. I want to thank you for that, really I do.

But now that I have finished thanking you, may I suggest to you that the 11-mill difference between the Metro average and that of the borough of York represents approximately $2.7 million. I want to ask you two questions:

One, does this government want to lead the borough of York to putting up the white flag and saying, “We quit, because we cannot keep increasing the property taxes of the people of the borough of York?” As you very well know, the break in terms of taxes in the borough of York is about 30 per cent commercial and 70 per cent residential, so any increase in the property taxes is going to come from the local home owners, and the people of the borough of York have come to the point where they just cannot pay this any longer.

If you take a look at one of the studies done in the borough you will get an appreciation of the amount of earning power and capacity of the people who live there, One study is entitled The Borough of York Housing Policy Study. In terms of family income distribution -- and you have got to understand this and do something about it -- the study says the Metro average of under $2,000 is 3.9 per cent; in the borough of York it is 4.2 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I think our time for committee has expired.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 pm.