The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DAY OF THE CHILD

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the United Nations is celebrating the Day of the Child as a way of focusing on the many programs and projects that have been initiated in this International Year of the Child. On behalf of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), who unfortunately is unable to be here because of a funeral, I would like to draw the House’s attention to this occasion.

In Ontario, a great many organizations and individuals have dedicated themselves to the services of children, not just to the special needs of children who require the services of my ministry but to their education, health, recreational and family needs.

During the past year, the government has encouraged and fostered the efforts of organizations and individuals in recognizing the International Year of the Child. The government believes appropriate service to children depends upon a realistic understanding of their needs and the resources necessary to meet those needs. We can help children best when we help them within the family context.

The initiatives undertaken during this past year in fostering the importance of the family unit are part of the government’s ongoing commitment to the wellbeing of children. This government is committed to improving the lot of our children. We may not always be able to do all we would like to; however, I would like to remind members of the 9.9 per cent increase in funding of children’s services by my ministry this year, at a time when almost all other government programs had to live with a substantially lesser percentage increase. This is in addition to the generous funding that exists within the ministries of Health and Education and other ministries.

I would not want to suggest to the House that our commitment to children should be understood in financial terms alone; as a government we have taken a number of policy initiatives which have assisted agencies and community groups in identifying the most effective way to accomplish their goals on behalf of children. We have made some major legislative changes affecting children, including the Family Law Reform Act, and we will continue these efforts for the children of this province who are, after all, our most precious asset.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is appropriate to say a word about this being International Year of the Child, in view of the statement which has just been made by the minister.

I would like to be able to join in a very positive way in talking about the commitment of this government to the children of this province, since it is the year of the child. Unfortunately, I can’t do so; but I think perhaps it is appropriate to say a word to express our distress and disappointment at the fact that in this year of the child this government has frozen day care; this government has not provided adequate facilities for kids --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- this government has not proceeded --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The honourable member knows there is ample opportunity to express his agreement or disagreement with anything said by the ministry during “Oral Questions.”

SECURITIES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just before the summer recess I introduced amendments to the Securities Act which dealt with questions arising from last year’s flurry of takeover bids. Over the summer, the Ontario Securities Commission considered public comments. As a result, we are withdrawing the previous bill and replacing it with consolidated amendments. These changes, which have been discussed with the investment community, clarify the act and fine tune the provisions of the earlier bill.

In addition, the amendments will allow the use of mini-prospectuses which will clear away unnecessary red tape for junior mining companies and mutual funds without undermining investor protection.

Mr. T. P. Reid: About time.

An hon. member: Back to 1929.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, let me summarize the amendments I introduced last June. During last year’s Simpsons-Sears and The Bay bidding war the Ontario Securities Commission found it advisable to meet with its Quebec counterpart to consider procedural and legal questions. The amendments clarify its authority to hold such joint meetings.

To give investors sufficient time to consider competing takeover bids, the amendments also permit the commission to extend the time limits, depending on the complexity of the offering. The bill also clarifies the provisions dealing with liability for insider trading.

The mini-prospectuses which junior mining companies may use in certain circumstances will provide meaningful financial information while removing the burden and cost of producing a full prospectus.

Similarly, the mutual fund industry will be able to send purchasers a prescribed summary statement instead of a full prospectus. However, the statement must specify that a complete prospectus will be sent on request.

These amendments to the new Securities Act, which has been in effect for only a few weeks, demonstrate the ability of the Ontario Securities Commission to respond quickly to changes in the investment climate. They also reflect the commission’s willingness to cut back on red tape, particularly when an important venture such as resource development is concerned.

At the same time, the principle of full, plain and timely disclosure is well served. It is for these reasons our securities legislation is the model for other provinces, and it is for these reasons I ask for the support of the House in ensuring we continue to be both fair and responsive.

LITTER CLEANUP

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, to mark the occasion of National Environment Week, which was last week, I am pleased to announce that Mississauga --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: We wanted to see they were successful before we read the statement. Mississauga became the first city in Canada to implement the clean community system.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think the people who are interested in the environment might be very interested in this. I’ll send them a copy. This system will be Canada’s first local-level waste control program to be based on behavioural change techniques.

Mr. Mancini: Where’s the minister?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is not just a cleanup campaign but an innovative approach to changing people’s trash-handling attitudes and practices. It involves the commitment and hard work of individuals from all sectors of community life, including municipal government, business, schools, community groups and the press and media. The program is managed by the group which was just certified by Keep America Beautiful Incorporated as a non-profit --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministerial statements are for the purpose of apprising the members of government policy. I would like to know what area of government policy that covers.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, this would be under the Ministry of the Environment in line with National Environment Week, which was recognized by this Legislature.

Mr. Martel: Propaganda Week.

Mr. Speaker: As long as you can put it within the purview of the Ministry of the Environment, but if it has something to do with another level of government, I think it would be inappropriate to classify it as a ministerial statement.

Mr. McClellan: He’s the minister without nothing.

An hon. member: He’s got to justify his money.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If you can develop it. Just outline your parameters.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The project team for this committee has worked since late last spring to bring about certification and it has received excellent response from the community and the total support of the municipal government. They have already completed a consumer attitude survey, done a photometric index, identified the major sources of litter-related problems within the community and begun the work to solve the problem, that is, to change the trash-handling practices of the persons and corporations involved.

In addition, an extensive litter and solid waste analysis has been done for the entire city and with this data the committee is already plotting the steps for correction.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is fair to say that this committee will bear watching and emulating. The clean community system is one that is already in practice in over several hundred cities in the United States as well as in other countries around the world.

Mr. Cunningham: What took us so long?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: In most reports, litter has been reduced by as much as 80 per cent, with a sustained reduction in litter almost as high or higher than the rate attained through the implementation of the program.

The issue of waste management has now been recognized as a global issue. The fundamentals of the clean community system apply around the world. This is an issue of people working together to solve problems themselves. It is recognized that governments cannot legislate everything but that people’s attitudes can be changed through the implementation of a positive and far-reaching campaign supported by themselves for themselves. This is what has happened in Mississauga --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: -- people working together for a better community together. A clean world indeed begins on our own doorstep. If we work together with our neighbours --

Mr. S. Smith: For heaven’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: -- to keep our cities beautiful, our world will remain beautiful. In the words of Goethe, “If every man would keep his own doorstep clean, very soon the whole world would be clean.”

It has been my pleasure to witness this program being initiated in my city. It warrants the attention of all those groups interested in ecology and the wellbeing of our fellow men.

Mr. Speaker: I was most reluctant to interrupt the Minister without Portfolio in his first-ever effort before this Legislature. I want to warn him and all other members that it will not be condoned unless the statement can be specifically tied in with government policy. I think the minister has failed to do that today.

Mr. Foulds: A point of order on that point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I’ve already discussed that and served notice on the Legislature how I will deal with it in future.

[2:15]

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer, the minister from Muskoka, now we have heard from Mr. Gregory, the minister from Mississauga East. Would the Treasurer recall that the Premier (Mr. Davis) disagreed with my stand some time ago that oil and gas should carry a much greater weight within the equalization formula in this country?

Given the recent events, now Ontario is facing a very serious oil price increase, is the Treasurer prepared to reconsider the position put by his leader to demand Ontario be included as a recipient of equalization payments under the new conditions which will prevail?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One could argue whether the mechanism needs to be equalization payments or some fundamental redistribution of oil revenues.

The basic position put forward in the Ontario energy paper was simple. Currently, the great bulk of the surplus moneys flowing to government is flowing to a provincial government not committed to the redistribution of that money within the confederation. Therefore, since we as a province have always had our resources taxed in the interests of the confederation, as it should be, we felt these moneys should be used for the benefit of all Canadians when they accrued.

At the same time the ministers of finance, led by Ontario, a year ago recognized the current equalization formula, using as it does some 26 or 27 variables, doesn’t well express the wealth of provinces any more. We use the very fact that even under the present formula Ontario had an entitlement. We do not believe Ontario is a have-not province in the definition meant when equalization payments were started and that was, of course, to provide basic services on some kind of equal basis across this country.

We would have to say, though, that with the great flow of money into the heritage fund in Alberta, there has to be a better mechanism to see it is used in the interests of the consumers of this country, the citizens, no matter where they may live.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Treasurer has already mentioned the entitlement which would be coming to Ontario, even under the present formula, is it Ontario’s intention to claim that entitlement which, I understand, is about $150 million this year? Secondly, would the Treasurer explain why it is he wishes to leave the resolution vague and why would he not insist that oil and gas revenues be considered much more heavily in equalization, given the fact an obsolete manufacturing industry is just as useless as an empty oil or gas well? The argument about depletion shouldn’t really apply when he considers our industry in Ontario is facing a very serious obsolescence situation unless we renew our plants as quickly as possible. Why will he not push for equalization and will he demand the $150 million that’s coming to us?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Last year, when I attended the first finance ministers’ conference, when asked whether Ontario would or would not accept its equalization money if it was entitled to it, I think my answer was I would take it so quickly the member’s hair would stand on end.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member’s hair, perhaps; mine has trouble standing at all. On that basis, the Leader of the Opposition and I have a lot in common, only mine is at the back and his is at the front.

I would only argue the concept of equalization was dealing with a fundamentally different problem from that which is flowing from the oil resources.

We told the federal people we wanted to look at the basic principles of equalization. I believe, when we get around to the first ministers’ and the finance ministers’ meetings, particularly the finance ministers’ meeting, that would be one of Ontario’s priorities on an agenda -- the restructuring and the redesign of the equalization formula. That’s not something that is carved in stone. It’s been done before. I think it was in 1962 when the latest change was made, and Ontario would argue the wealth of Canada has changed a lot in that period of time.

I’d like to go to the other side of the coin, though. The member implied, I think, that our industry was run down in the process. I would argue that is not so. The finding of wealth in other parts of Canada hasn’t made Ontario poorer. Thank God there are now fewer poor relatives. We will have fewer provinces entitled to share in what has fundamentally been an Ontario source of equalization money. Let’s hope Newfoundland finds a lot of oil there.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ll have replacement problems too, though.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have, in fact, improved the Canadian overall wealth situation. Ontario has some very efficient manufacturing industries.

Mr. S. Smith: But it’s depletable.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sure, it’s depletable and requires continuous investment to maintain its position. The automobile business in Ontario, I would hazard a guess, is as efficient as the one in the United States. The steel industry, thank goodness, is more efficient than the industry in the United States.

Mr. Kerrio: The auto pact is not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is that we would have some industries, perhaps textiles and pulp and paper, that face certain real world problems right now. We would say those industries do need consideration to make sure they maintain their capital stock in a position that allows them to remain competitive in the world.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In light of the fact that each $1 increase per barrel in the price of oil costs the taxpayers in this province an additional four cents a barrel in equalization payments and only costs Alberta taxpayers one cent a barrel, can the Treasurer say whether the renegotiations he talked about will ensure that Ontarians are not paying heavily for equalization based on oil revenues that Ontarians don’t receive?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think that’s where the argument is going on. I’m glad the member used the word “taxpayer” because the Toronto Star, which had its energy edition out today, in one article very well described the problem in a headline. I think if one looks at a good deal of the flow of the moneys, he’s not seeing increases in the price of oil; he’s seeing tax increases in another form. I think one has to look at that.

I think we could argue very well that a tax is being imposed to move money to other jurisdictions that is going to governments. It is doing nothing, the way it’s at present structured, to improve oil security in this country. Therefore it isn’t really helping the consumers of this country.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Does the minister not concur though that the big challenge and one of the great opportunities Ontario has at the present time is to face the manufacturing reality in terms of energy consumption, understanding that we compete in the world market and understanding that Japan gets away with half per capita, France with 45 per cent and West Germany with about 50 per cent of the energy that we’re consuming here? Does that not indicate to him that industry has got to move in that direction in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m sure industry does have to move in that direction and you and I as individuals have to move in that direction. Our per capita oil consumption in Ontario is the highest in the world. It’s six gallons per capita per day, if my figures are correct. I would hazard a guess that Great Britain is three gallons per capita per day and Germany is in the same range. Japan is probably below that.

It’s a measure, though, not of industrial inefficiency per se. It’s a measure of how we like to travel, how we like to pass our recreational time, the temperature at which we like our homes -- all of those things as well as industrial inefficiency.

Mr. J. Reed: Don’t put it all on the consumer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would argue that of all the areas receiving attention, the area that is getting the greatest attention right now is that which is in industry because it has an immediate balance-sheet motivation for doing something about it.

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary, if I might: If I understood the Treasurer correctly, he says the number one item on the agenda which Ontario insists upon is the restructuring of the equalization formula. If that is the Ontario position now -- and if so, I welcome that -- can he explain why it is that his leader, the Premier, disagreed with my identical recommendation when it was made approximately one month ago?

Where is the misunderstanding here? Why was it not a good idea a month ago but is an excellent idea and should be number one on the agenda now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’d like to read the words I put into Hansard. I thought I said I rated it as an important item. I didn’t think I said it was the number one item. If I did, then I don’t recall it that way.

I also would like to see where my Premier said it was not an important issue. I think my Premier has implied that Ontario is not a have-not province and that equalization formulae were structured in the beginning to help provinces that had a fundamental lack of revenue, something we don’t feel we have. We are only saying that the taxes, or the increases in oil levies, are in fact shifting money away from us that properly should be reinvested here as well as elsewhere, or else returned some way to the consumer to maintain his standard of living.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Given the fact that at Ryerson there are five applicants for every available position, vastly unlike the situation at most other post-secondary institutions, particularly the universities; given the unique nature of Ryerson as a place to combine broad education with a more job-related training; given the fact the young people want it, the industries want it and it obviously is the way of the future for Ontario’s education, why in the name of heaven is the government of Ontario continuing to starve Ryerson for funds, forcing it against the wall, forcing it to consider closing its higher-cost programs, which are the very ones industry wants it to maintain? When will the minister start to fund Ryerson properly?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the arrangements for the funding of Ryerson were developed in 1974 with the approval of Ryerson.

Mrs. Campbell: Come on, stop that nonsense.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In February of this year I was notified by the board of Ryerson that it felt a modification should be made to the funding mechanism. It was requested to provide information to us, to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, in order that an assessment might be made of its request.

I am informed that in July that information was completed almost totally. Shortly thereafter an interview occurred between the president of Ryerson and the Ontario Council on University Affairs. I have been informed by the chairman of that council that it is in fact examining this at the moment and will make a recommendation in the next few weeks about Ryerson’s funding.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since this matter has been raised repeatedly here, since it has been going on for almost a year, when is the minister going to act without having to wait for various people to study various reports and then to have committee meetings about them?

Surely the minister understands that 1.3 basic income units on average is insufficient for a polytechnic in today’s highly technological age. Why doesn’t the minister give some assurance to Ryerson that it is going to get the funding it requires as the main, the only polytechnic we have in Ontario? Why do we have to have this foot-dragging every time Ryerson is involved?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are other institutions equating a polytechnic capacity within Ontario. I am not sure Ryerson is entirely and totally unique. I have been reminded with some great frequency by the president of that institution and by others that there is a unique character about Ryerson, about which I have some understanding.

But one does not separate from the entire post-secondary system one institution in order to examine its role without being concerned about the roles of the other institutions.

Mr. Warner: In other words, let them starve.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the honourable members that Ryerson has not been starving. Ryerson has continued to function and its restriction upon enrolment has not been any greater than have some of the enrolment restrictions placed upon certain of the limited enrolment programs in various universities in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: The medical schools.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: The minister, in her answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s first question, indicated Ryerson had been talking to the government about this problem for only the last year; is it not true that Ryerson began discussions about this problem many years before she became minister and had been discussing the problem with the now Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott)?

For a government like the minister’s, which always says it is responsive to the problems of the people of Ontario, why the heck is it taking so long to respond to a problem which is relatively clear cut?

Mr. Warner: It is an annual problem.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The problem was brought to my attention in February of last year and I have dealt with it since that time.

[2:30]

Mr. Warner: Your investigation is like a coroner’s inquest.

Mrs. Campbell: Is the minister not aware that there was discussion with the former Minister of Colleges and Universities about this particular problem of funding? Did they not talk to each other?

Did the minister not assure the justice committee that she had in fact read the Hansard of the briefs before that committee? If she did, did she not read what Dr. Winegard said when he tried to prove Ryerson wasn’t unique, when he referred to Lakehead University and had to answer the question? Lakehead is not funded the same as Ryerson; Lakehead has the same kind of programs but is funded differently and the space allocations for Lakehead are totally different from Ryerson. When will she respond to those problems?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have read that documentation and as a matter of fact I am very much aware that there had been earlier discussions about the funding of Ryerson and that certain decisions were made. A new application was made to me by the president of Ryerson this year. I am attempting to respond to it in the most responsible way that I can use --

Mr. Warner: That’s what we are worried about: your idea of responsibility.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- which is to ask the Council on University Affairs, which was responsible for the initial examination of Ryerson, to consider it and to make some recommendation to me.

Mr. Warner: It’s sure taking you long enough.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Treasurer on oil prices. Can the Treasurer report what progress he made in his discussions with the federal government on oil pricing last week? In particular will the Treasurer undertake to call in the heads of the oil companies and require them to justify their excessive demand for a $9 a barrel increase in oil prices next year, a demand which the Treasurer’s own estimates indicate would cost Ontario 45,000 jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Part one of the question was what success did we have in Ottawa last week.

Mr. Warner: None.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I honestly can’t tell the honourable member. I have no commitments to say that we made any progress, but we stuck to two simple themes: first, that the Ontario position enunciated on price, that the price shouldn’t go up more than $1 per barrel on January 1, should remain the position until such time as an agreement is made upon the distribution of the moneys.

There is in effect no winning stance in this kind of position. I can only say to the honourable member, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) has said several times, that Ontario has been the lone province over the last several years constraining the price increase in oil. Had Ontario not done that and had we consistently not made our point of view known, all of our consumers today would be paying much higher prices.

Mr. S. Smith: Nonsense. The former federal government kept prices in line. The present federal government caved in to Alberta.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are now totally satisfied that we should continue with that kind of approach and that it is having an effect and we will see the consumer protected against the kinds of increases being demanded on the front page of the Star today by Premier Lougheed. We have effectively brought the Ontario position before both federal governments and prevented that from happening. I think that by itself is a major achievement.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the fact that in the first nine months of this year the profits of Imperial Oil were up by 37 per cent to $309 million and the profits of Shell Oil were up by 66 per cent to $174 million, will the Treasurer undertake to call in the oil company presidents and have them justify their demands for a $9 increase next year which, with their demands for future years, could take $12 billion from Ontario consumers in their first four years of the 1980s and give those oil companies an extra $2¼ billion in after-tax profits in that period of time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t think I have to. First, Ontario has very few oil-producing companies within it. If one looks at the structure through the favourable corporate tax structure of Alberta, we’ve lost them all. They are all domiciled there.

Mr. Kerrio: Go west, young man.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Secondly, that’s a federal matter and I would hope sincerely that that kind of discussion would go on at the federal level because that’s where the decision-making authority rests --

Mr. Kerrio: They are your friends.

Mr. Warner: You will do nothing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and it must rest there because it’s a national problem and there’s one price in Canada for oil. Therefore, we are continuing to tell it with all the authority, with all the pressure we can. Representing 40 per cent of this country’s people and a lot more than 40 per cent of the seats the federal government holds, we are telling them that this is in the interests not only of this province but all the consumers of Canada. We are fighting hard on this.

Mr. Bradley: We didn’t hear that during the campaign.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At this moment the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) is out west in Alberta discussing these kinds of problems.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, since the minister says that over the years Ontario has been trying to keep down the price of oil and it would have been higher if it had not been for its representations and so on, will he not admit there are two fundamental problems with that position?

Will he not admit that the first problem is that whereas Mr. Lougheed always wanted world price there was in the past a federal government which, whatever its faults, refused to give him huge increases and the present federal government caves in, and that the second problem is that Ontario has been led for the last several years by a Premier (Mr. Davis) with so little persuasive ability that he has been unable to convince a single province of Canada to be on the side of Ontario in this dispute with the producing province? Not another province agrees with us, not one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP gave up smoking.

Mr. Bradley: Answer the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just be quiet. It may seem irrelevant but in this there’s a tale.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Just like your answers; they are all irrelevant.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Patrick, Patrick.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As Minister of Health then, I was the beneficiary of a lot of advice about how I should stop people from smoking because that was a nasty thing. He was converted on the road to Damascus, but the greatest conversion of all by my Premier is the gentleman sitting right there -- the gentleman who advocated world price, the gentleman who is now trying to say it is all his idea when it’s ours. He’s trying to find a position on our side of the fence when he has been on the wrong side all along.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have to say as an aside that far from being converted by him when he was Minister of Health, I had to try to convert his government to do any propaganda effort to stop smoking across the province.

My supplementary question is to return to the question of the excessive profits of the oil companies who do 40 per cent of their oil business here in the province of Ontario, wherever they happen to be domiciled, and when they do that business in Ontario the Treasurer knows perfectly well that they are taxed on their business where they do their business. Is the Treasurer prepared to undertake that there will be a windfall profits tax in Canada which will stop the oil companies from taking these billions upon billions of excess profits out of the demands for increased oil prices which they are now putting before the oil ministers in Calgary and the rest of the country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I have never philosophically had the hangup about profits that the leader of the New Democratic Party has. He has that hangup. Profits are absolutely essential to guarantee the supply of oil. Our major concern is two things. One is, are they being reinvested? The information I would have says that 85 per cent of the cash flow is going back into investment in this country right now. The second thing is, is it escaping Canada? That’s a real concern, but I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Warner: Corporate apologist.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- that the basic problem put forward by Ontario was simply, whether you call it a windfall profits tax or whether you call it revenue sharing, a good chunk of any future increase, if any is ever given, must be returned to the provinces or the consumers of the country in a way that does the things that protect our industry, protect our consumption and avoid recession.

Mr. J. Reed: If the minister, rethinking what he just said a few minutes ago in that answer, would take the trouble to correct the record and point out to the House the position of the Liberal Party over the last four years regarding the price of petroleum --

Mr. Eaton: You tell us.

Mr. J. Reed: -- and regarding the recognition that we had to pay for oil, we had to pay what it cost, but we, at no time, advocated a move to world price.

An hon. member: Out of order, Mr. Speaker. You can’t ask yourself a question.

Mr. J. Reed: I wonder if the minister would take the trouble now, here and now, to stop the deception, in which he has obviously come to believe about the opposition's position on this matter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Being a member of the government party, I obviously suffer from delusions at times --

Mr. Kerrio: Blue herrings.

Mr. Makarchuk: So far you are right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- but luckily the people sitting up above me have their heads screwed on right and see the world the way it is. I have to tell the member the day his party followed our position paper with their new position paper the first people to refer to their old position paper were those in the press gallery.

Mr. Riddell: Why don’t you tell it as it is?

Mr. S. Smith: Tell the truth.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right. All you have to do is start telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: It is getting unbearable, the kind of crap we get from over there.

Interjections.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Given the fact that subsequent to our question about the Willett Hospital, Paris, they were told they have been put at the top of the appeal list, I hope we can get action as quickly on this question as well, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Health say what action the government intends to take in order to protect low-income citizens of Ontario from being double billed by doctors who have opted out of OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the Willett Hospital, Paris question now? That is the note I sent you about a question asked previously.

The staff of my ministry have been in touch with that hospital on a number of occasions in the last five or six weeks since they first submitted an appeal on their budget and indicated as recently as last week that their appeal would be dealt with this week. The fact it is being dealt with on Thursday and Friday of this week has nothing whatsoever to do with the member’s question yesterday. I am sorry to tell him that.

Mr. Cassidy: It was arranged at three o’clock yesterday afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. Staff, as I said, have been in touch with them regularly in the last five or six weeks.

I found out they had -- and they had not notified the minister they had done this -- not filled three beds that had become vacant in the last 10 days or so, on the deaths of three chronic-care patients. We had indicated to them, as we have before, we would rather they did not close chronic beds and asked them to use them right away, which they indicated they are doing.

Further, we found the 14 people who have been referred to as being on the waiting list are already in hospital, 12 of them in Brantford hospitals, two of them in the Willett in active-treatment beds awaiting transfer to chronic-care beds.

They will have their answer within the week on the appeal which is being heard, as I said, at the end of this week.

I may say also that the local health council is working closely with all the hospitals in the county and the medical society to come up with what we hope will be a mutually acceptable plan to make the best use of the existing resources, recognizing the changing pressures on the system in that area.

Now, what was the member’s question?

An hon. member: Double billing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This question of double billing: It is not entirely an accurate statement when the member says “double billing.”

I know why they use the words they do. It is to lead people to one conclusion, regardless of the facts.

I am pleased to say that even with the increase in physicians billing their patients directly which levelled off in February this year, we have seen those numbers decline in the last eight months. In other words it has stabilized, if you will.

Mr. Swart: Something to be proud of, the stabilizing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have also found that while we have about 17.8 per cent of physicians billing patients directly, only about 11 per cent of the claims are actually billed directly. So the billing groups in the hospitals are being made good use of, it would seem.

[2:45]

Mr. Bradley: Does that make it right?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We found that where people have come forward and put their information before the Ontario Medical Association -- which offered in the spring to set up the service they did -- these claims can be straightened out.

Mr. Warner: It’s not working.

Mr. Breaugh: Tell us about it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would remind the member that if I was to put into one file all the correspondence I have had from the member’s party on individual cases -- which are no less important -- it wouldn’t begin to compare with the total volume of claims that are paid on behalf of the population of this province on a routine basis. We now process and pay approximately 250,000 claims every single working day for the population of the province.

I’m saying where there are difficulties, where people have not been informed beforehand, and where there are these differences between individuals and their physicians, we have found that by using the services of the Ontario Medical Association we can straighten most of those out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One of the reasons for my leader asking this question was that a Mrs. Patricia Murphy, in my riding, on a family benefits income of $351 has been billed $66 in excess of OHIP rates and is unable to pay. I am disappointed to hear the minister is still suggesting only that they come to their doctor for charity.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no question there yet.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Would the minister also support the advice given to Mrs. Murphy by Community and Social Service workers in her area? They suggested to her and to my office that one solution would be for her not to pay the $66 or that maybe she should pay $1 a month and hope that a collection agency does not jump into the action. Would the minister suggest this course of action, as well, for people under the poverty level who are being hit by double billing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has related a number of conversations but he hasn’t indicated whether the patient has spoken with her physician. He hasn’t indicated whether the medical association --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: She has.

Mr. Warner: Stop apologizing and do something. Why don’t you try protecting the patients from being ripped off by the doctors?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the correspondence I’ve had in the last eight months or a year and in the cases of which I’m aware, there aren’t that many where the services of the medical association are employed when one considers the volume of services being provided to the people of this province. There are something in the order of 60 million claims a year -- more than seven claims per person per year now through the health-care plan. It’s the kind of thing that leads us to the same conclusion the leader of the NDP arrived at a few months ago -- that you don’t use draconian measures.

While I’m at it, I’ve seen the communique the NDP put out today about the petition it is circulating. May I ask those members to do one thing: have people print or write legibly. Because I want to serve notice on them now that I intend to write every single person who signs any such petition that is tabled here to give them the true facts about health care in this province -- not that party’s distortions.

TOURISM SUPPORT

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Tourism a question arising from the minister’s tourism statement of a week ago Friday, October 12. Does he anticipate this proposed initiative of granting and guaranteeing loans up $18.5 million will have any effect at all on our provincial tourism deficit? This deficit now stands at approximately $600 million, but according to the projections of the Minister of Industry and Tourism could reach $1.4 billion within six years. Does he see this initiative as having a real effect on those projections?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. I don’t know the date or source of that projected tourism deficit, but our current estimate is that this year the deficit will decrease by perhaps as much as $200 million for Ontario. Quite an accomplishment, I think

I believe the program we brought in last week will make a very substantial difference.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Clever of you to arrange a gas shortage in the States.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait until you see what we have for next year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe the program we brought in last week will make a very substantial difference. We would hope to be able to use the money in more selective ways than in our earlier programs -- the Ontario Development Corporation programs, for example. By selective, I mean we will be making the money available not just to everyone who comes to the door but to those people who come in with projects we feel will best meet the new and changing market -- destination resorts, resorts which are adding facilities for conventions or which want to add, for example, indoor pools and indoor tennis courts, those types of facilities which will draw people in the shoulder seasons and off seasons when they currently have to go out of this jurisdiction to get those kinds of facilities.

If we can tackle that problem, we will be keeping dollars here that currently must go out of the province to get that sort of facility. Indeed, we have a great potential to attract those people who are now coming here in the summer only and would be most anxious to come back, particularly in view of the gasoline shortage, from the border states into this part of the province in the fall or spring periods.

All in all, I think it can make it to a quite tremendous standard.

Mr. Eakins: Is the minister aware that on a comparative basis similar initiatives have been undertaken in British Columbia and in the province of Quebec? While the minister’s initiative has been for $18.5 million, British Columbia made available $50 million and Quebec $250 million for tourism alone.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now they’re serious.

Mr. Eakins: Is the minister satisfied that the $18.5 million is sufficient to reduce our deficit here? What new initiatives is he planning to introduce?

An hon. member: That wouldn’t keep Minaki open.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, tell us about Minaki.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To put those figures in proper perspective we must understand that Ontario begins with much better plant, much more diversified plant than some of the other provinces.

Secondly, some of the figures the member has given us are figures that are the result of enormous amounts of funding from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I don’t remember the figures offhand. I think last year Alberta succeeded in obtaining a DREE agreement for tourism alone of something to the tune of $50 million -- half from the province of Alberta and half from the federal government, precisely the point I’ve been making.

Quebec got a DREE tourism agreement to the tune of $75 million. I think in both those cases and in the British Columbia instance --

Mr. T. P. Reid: What did you ask for?

An hon. member: You didn’t ask.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have. Those moneys have been applied for major projects such as Whistler in BC and Mont Tremblant in Quebec. Those are fundamental.

We are currently trying to bring to fruition a half dozen of those types of major projects in which this government, I hope with some DREE funds, can make substantial investments.

I should add that one of the things we have in this province -- and which we have succeeded in attracting here -- that the others haven’t is an enormous degree of private sector involvement in terms of the Maple theme park, just to name one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister, as a businessman would he invest in a tourist project in northern Ontario when this government gives us platitudes about the help they are providing to the tourist industry while at the same time his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), allows visitors to the province, non-Canadian residents, to camp, fish and hunt anywhere on crown land for up to three weeks without that costing them a nickel?

What is the incentive for a northern Ontario tourist outfitter to build the facilities the minister is talking about when non-resident visitors can park and camp literally right next to their facilities without spending a penny?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The fact is NOTOA, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association, will probably this year record one of the best seasons they have ever had.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And it could be double and triple last year’s.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me tell the member we are doing something about it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You aren’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: NOTOA has for years been suggesting initiatives we might pick up, getting back into the sportsmen’s shows being one of them --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That was one of them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and we are doing it this coming year.

The second thing they have been telling us is that we have to provide some money to allow them to expand their facilities. They don’t see the problem of lack of customers --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They passed a resolution last year. What have you done about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And we’ve responded. The member is right; they passed two main resolutions last year -- to go back into the sportsmen’s shows and “give us some money so we can upgrade our facilities.” We are going back into the sportsmen’s shows and we introduced a program last week to allow them to upgrade their facilities. To date I believe we’ve responded to each and every one of their resolutions positively --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not to the last one, you haven’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and if the member goes back and checks with them he’ll see the head of the organization, Dean Wenborne, expressed only one reservation, one only, about our new incentive program. He hopes that as part of it we will ensure there are qualified people to run the establishment that will be supported. PS: that is part of our program. We will ensure that’s happening.

Northern Ontario tourist outfitters are well treated by this province, by this ministry, by the Ministry of Northern Affairs. If the member speaks to them he’ll find out they’re having a great season, due in no small way to the advertising campaign and the support this government has given that part of the province.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I’ll ask my supplementary to the Minister of Health as a new question. What would the Minister of Health suggest to Mr. George Ursuliak, of 428 Parent in Windsor, who was on sickness and accident leave from work and who has been seeing Dr. G. Stecko since August 1978 when Dr. Stecko, in Windsor, was in OHIP and therefore cannot change to a new orthopaedic surgeon? What would he suggest to this individual who is now living on $464 a month; owes the doctor $120 over and above the OHIP fee schedule -- and is going in for surgery again -- plus $4 extra for office visits? How does the minister expect this individual to be able to pay his medical bills?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows one of the basic principles of the plan is that the services in the hospital would be available at OHIP rates, so that gentleman has the right to insist on the service being provided. In fact, that same surgeon may very well provide it by using the billing group.

I understand about six months ago the medical association wrote to the NDP caucus saying they would like to hear of any individual problems they were aware of so they could deal with them on a professional basis rather than being dealt with on a political basis. I further understand the NDP has never used that service. It works, that’s why they don’t want to use it, because it works. They can’t use them as whipping boys.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you stop apologizing for them? Start protecting the patient for a change.

Mr. Mackenzie: Evading your responsibility.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Does the minister not realize this is a political problem? He’s the Minister of Health and it’s about time he instituted policies to make medicare work in this province. Why do we have to drag cases in front of him?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker that’s exactly the point. They don’t. They only do so because they want to try and make use of it for political purposes. The fact of the matter is the system works well. It works darn well and it has worked well for many years in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Is the member going to deal specifically with the issue raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside? The question dealt with a specific OHIP claim. If he can relate it directly to that, I’ll allow it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since you’ve asked me to be specific, will the minister undertake to protect people like Mr. Ursuliak by bringing in legislation to ensure that doctors do not have the right to extra-bill and that there is one price for medicare in this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it’s very interesting that all through the spring the leader of the NDP was bouncing all over the place. Depending on whom he talked to, one day he was for opting the doctors in, another day he was for leaving the doctors as they were, another day he was for the Quebec system. It’s interesting he’s never once advocated the Saskatchewan system which is exactly what the official position of the medical association is in this province. They want patient streaming which his party provided for in Saskatchewan in 1962.

We believe a system based on free choice of the patient and free choice of the physician works best.

Mr. Cassidy: What free choice does Mr. Ursuliak have?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In a system where 250,000 times a day, every single day, we are paying claims for services provided to the people there are going to be times when there will be differences between a patient and his physician.

Mr. Kerrio: And the minister wants them to beg.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member’s solution is to put the government between the patient and the physician.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister’s solution is charity medicine.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m telling the member that our experience is that the problem can be solved through the services of the profession.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That’s how we get into so much difficulty during question period, when the minister talks directly to somebody over there. It’s common knowledge that when a member has the floor he addresses the assembly through the Speaker. When we get a minister waving and gesticulating he’s going to get a reaction. I caution all members that if they want to wave their fingers wave them at me and not at somebody else.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I had no differences of opinion with you, sir. All the distortions were coming from that end of the chamber. I’ll be glad to address everything through you, sir.

Mr. Kerrio: Why doesn’t the minister just tell us he favours charity medicine?

An hon. member: Tell them the truth. Tommy Douglas ruined medicate.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOLYARD

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Last Thursday I was questioned about our actions regarding heavy metal contamination on the property of Dominion Tack and Nail Limited in Cambridge. I indicated to the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) that I would get back to him with a detailed response. I would ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if this answer appears a bit lengthy. As a matter of fact it’s four pages long.

Mr. Speaker: It should have been done by way of a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It has a lot of detail in it, Mr. Speaker, that I think is very relevant. I wish to get all of those facts on the record.

Mr. Kerrio: Print 125 copies.

An hon. member: Add five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Our prime concern is with the contamination going from a company property. While contamination on or off an industry’s property is undesirable, it can be the natural but undesirable result of industrial activity regardless of the cleanliness of that company’s operation. However, what we must ensure is that this pollution is curtailed and that any contamination from the industry does not affect the adjacent areas.

The major property near Dominion Tack and Nail Limited is, of course, the Manchester Public School. The schoolyard was extensively sampled and analysed late last fall for heavy metal contamination. Because of the complex nature of the testing procedures it took several months before results were completed. When they were, we then notified the school, the company, the local medical officer of health and our own medical advisers from the Ministry of Labour.

There is no question that the levels of certain metals in the soil do exceed levels set by our phytotoxicology experts. The levels which they set do not indicate human toxicity. That’s an important point. Rather, they are set as an indicator to us that there is a contamination source in the vicinity which should be curtailed to prevent possible future problems. The sources identified in this case are Dominion Tack and Nail and Canadian Brass Limited.

At the time we received the report, and in both situations, action was taken or already had been under way to stop further pollution. It has been the practice of Dominion Tack and Nail to deposit plating wastes on its own property with a tile system to collect any sludge runoff.

In 1976, to replace this disposal, the company installed a treatment system which allows a treated liquid effluent to be discharged through the sewer system. Any residual sludge is hauled away for proper disposal. As an additional measure, to prevent future runoff from the property which could contribute to heavy metal concentrations in the school soil, the company is regrading its land.

In the case of Canadian Brass, it was determined that air emissions were contributing to contamination so a control order was issued in 1976. It required the company to install air pollution control equipment by August 1977. This was completed on time and the emissions are within the ministry criteria.

Mr. Kerrio: With renewals printed on the back.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As regards the health of the school children, the medical experts have examined the situation closely and have advised us the soil in the schoolyard is not a danger to the children. As an additional precaution, the medical officer of health conducted tests in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour’s occupational health branch.

Results which were released to the public confirmed their opinions: the children’s blood level tests for copper, lead and cadium were within acceptable levels. Incidentally, blood tests for lead by itself are considered good indicators for the presence of other heavy metals, so that if an individual has a high metal level it will usually be detected through an elevated lead level.

In answer to the specific question from the member for Wentworth North about possible charges, we will not be prosecuting either company over this incident. Controls have been complied with and are effective, and medical consultants have advised us there is no danger to the children.

Because of the community concern over this issue I have spoken with both companies. Despite the lack of evidence of a health hazard, they appreciate that lingering concern may exist and they indicated they are willing to explore further action which might help alleviate any worries the community may still have over the children’s safety.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: I really can’t get over the fact that it took five months to get the completion of these studies. Would the minister take it up with the various companies involved in this and see that their facilities are more properly fenced to make sure the school children don’t have an opportunity to get in the back of those plants?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I thought the fences were in place now. I’m not 100 per cent sure of that, but I’ll certainly be glad to confirm that.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary: I’m sure the minister has a copy of his own report from his ministry dated March 12, 1979, the title of which is: “Report of the results of the soil assessment survey on the playground at Manchester Public School.”

Is the minister aware that the level of copper at station 25 is 174 times greater than the criteria for the province of Ontario, that the level of nickel is two times greater, that the level for lead is 3.3 times greater and that the level for zinc is 22.3 times greater? If he is aware of this, can the minister please tell me what level of toxicity has to be reached prior to this government taking any action and having that topsoil removed? Can he tell me what level has to be reached before he’s prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if the member would refer back to the answer that I gave, obviously we are aware of those levels. It’s our report. It’s a bit redundant to ask the question.

Mr. M. Davidson: I was just wondering if you’d read it.

Mr. Kerrio: A report’s one thing; action is another. There are all kinds of reports.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think what my detailed answer pointed out is that the member must be very careful when he tries to distinguish between those levels which are considered guidelines for plants and those which are harmful to human life. There is quite a difference.

Mr. M. Davidson: What level are you using for a guideline?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That relationship of the levels that we have established as what would be the normal that one would expect to find, the relationship between elevated levels and the human health problem is an impossibility to tell. It depends on so many factors.

Mr. M. Davidson: For that reason alone you should remove the dirt.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With respect, the member says we haven’t taken any action. I don’t know why the member will not listen. As he heard today, there was action taken in 1976, completed in 1977, and it is within our guidelines.

Mr. M. Davidson: That’s air emissions.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Secondly, on tests that we did on those students there is absolutely no evidence of health damage to those children.

Mr. Foulds: Have you ever heard of preventive care?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: He asked for action. It was taken long before he asked. It’s that simple.

Mr. M. Davidson: How much would it cost to remove the soil and replace it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister took five minutes for his prepared response. Normally it shouldn’t exceed two minutes. I’m going to add three minutes to the question period, which would terminate it at 3:18. A new question?

Mr. Cunningham: I’m going to ask a final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, you’ve already had a supplementary. You had two supplementaries when you asked it originally.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with your comment in that regard and I apologize for those long technical answers. Our position is, to understand the situation, that kind of detail is frequently required. I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order with regard to lengthy answers to questions taken as notice is quite clear. If it is lengthy, it should be done by way of a ministerial statement, rather than by taking up the time of the question period.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. McGuigan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) will be interested.

Early this month federal inspectors found low levels of PCBs in poultry products in British Columbia. These levels were traced to a source in the United States where a transformer had leaked PCBs into tallow, which was later used in the feed mixture and found its way to British Columbia. I understand these transformers are used in processing the feed-mixing plants in Ontario.

Does the minister have any plans either to remove these transformers from these very sensitive areas or to retrofit them with a shielding or catchment device that would catch the PCBs in the event of a leak, therefore keeping them out of food and food products?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In reply, there are several points which should be made. First of all, I am sure the member knows the new use of PCBs in transformers has been banned for some period of time. So we need not worry about additional transformers coming on stream.

The really difficult position at this moment is to find a way of safely disposing of those PCBs we have in our society today. I am sure the member is aware of our very strenuous efforts to have approval for a test burn in Mississauga. Hopefully, if that is proven to be a safe method, then we will have a good disposal method for PCBs in our environment.

With those two things done successfully and the facility in place, of course, the program will be to eliminate all of those hazards in any transformer, regardless of whether it is in a sensitive area by definition or not. Our ultimate goal is to eliminate PCB material in our society. Until that is done I don’t think any of us should rest comfortably. We must do that. If we succeed in our present hearings, it will be done.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: I hope this isn’t a repetition but in view of the minister’s answer I am concerned about the PCBs that are presently there. Temporary measures could be taken to prevent them from getting into feedstock, such as a catchment device on the transformer, which I would think could be retrofitted rather cheaply to prevent this happening.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The problem is that PCBs in transformers are in every community in almost untold numbers of sensitive situations. We must have the facility to dispose of them before we can do anything more. There is no value in transferring them from A to B to C and putting them in circles. The key is in disposing of them; there is no question about that. The member has identified some sensitive areas but I think he would find there might be quite a number of others in addition to what he suggests are sensitive areas.

Certainly, the presence of PCBs close to our food stream is important, and also to our water-courses where they can get into the natural environment. There are many sensitive areas and I don’t think we should single out one. The war is against PCBs in all forms and as early as possible.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. I am assuming the Treasurer is aware of all these rumours swirling around about further increases in the interest rate. He may even know that Morgan Guaranty Trust Company in the United States raised its prime rate from 14.5 to 15 per cent this morning.

[3:15]

Since the Clark government in Ottawa has tended to match the increases as they come in the United States, has the Treasurer considered the very serious impact these interest-rate increases are having on the housing sector in Ontario? Further, if he knows it now costs $126 per month more than a year ago for a $60,000 mortgage, which is what is required in a place like Toronto and other urban centres in Ontario, what does he plan to do to protect the mortgage holder in Ontario?

Mr. Conway: Tory times are tough times. A Tory is a Tory is a Tory is a Tory.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member well knows he is asking questions that are fundamentally under federal jurisdiction.

Interjections.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That makes us doubly worried.

Mr. Speaker: Time’s awasting.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We’ve been concerned about the interest changes. I would point out that nearly all new housing coming on the market currently had mortgages arranged before the current spate of increases took place.

Mr. Mancini: What happens when you have to renew it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would also point out the long-term rates have tended to remain below the current bank rate. In other words, mortgage interest rates have remained below prime. One of the reasons for that is the market is anticipating we are reaching a peak in the interest rates on a short-term basis --

Mr. Mancini: I hope so.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- hopefully, and in fact long-term rates over the next five years will be lower than the current rates. The market has been assuming that for some time and I think some of the trust companies of this province have been facing some real difficulties in trying to make a profit because they have been paying current rates for deposits but not charging the normal spread between the deposit and the mortgage rate. Undoubtedly it will have an effect, but luckily the combination of the Ontario tax credit, which is a fairly generous tax credit system, and the recently announced federal mortgage interest deductibility will have a cushioning effect for many home owners.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would hope the approximately $470 million Ontario flows back to its owners and tenants would help cushion the blow. That doesn’t, in any way, relieve my concern.

The honourable member said, “match the changes” and I’d like to point out they haven’t matched them. They have gone upwards when the American rate went up, but not necessarily by the same amount. I believe the last time -- and it may be quite significant -- when the rate rose one per cent in the United States, it rose three quarters of one per cent in Canada.

I have listened to the opinions of my economists. My economists like all economists, are not of one opinion.

The advantages and disadvantages of following the US rate have to be weighed. I’m not sure what pressures the federal government or the Bank of Canada are under from forces like the International Monetary Fund. I would like to know, because without knowing that I don’t think it’s fair for me to judge whether they have taken the right action or not.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the Treasurer knows the definition of an economist now is someone who has accurately predicted eight out of the last three recessions.

Is the minister also aware the increased costs of the higher interest rates over the past year now cost three times as much for that person with a $60,000 mortgage as the federal government’s tax credit plan?

Mr. Speaker: That’s going to have to be the honourable member’s question.

Mr. Laughren: Surely the minister could tell us what he is going to do, since housing is a provincial responsibility, to protect people in the housing market? Will he work out a progressive tax credit system with the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Our Ontario tax credit system is progressive at the present time. I would say simply I always review that system at budget time.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 154, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to transfer the power to pass bylaws respecting store closing hours under section 355 of the Municipal Act from the area municipalities to the regional council, something which has been requested of us by the regional council.

UNIFORM RETAIL STORE CLOSING HOURS ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 155, An Act to provide for Uniform Retail Store Closing Hours.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish standard hours during which retail stores may remain open. The bill provides that retail stores must close no later than six o’clock in the afternoon on business days, except Thursdays and Fridays when such stores must be closed no later than nine o’clock in the evening. Any retail business that is exempted from the requirements of the Retail Business Holidays Act, 1975, is also exempted from the requirements of this bill.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved that the order for second reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Securities Act, 1978, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Parrott moved second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, I don’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, my comments are going to be very brief. Essentially, this is a housekeeping bill. It simply amalgamates two appeal mechanisms into one, a point on which we certainly agree.

The Pesticides Appeal Board has not been a very active appeal board. I think last year there was only one appeal in the 12-month period. There are seven people on that board, which really doesn’t have a very fulfilling challenge in dealing with the appeals under this particular board.

I would certainly agree with the intent of the bill and support it, because I think those seven people could be much better employed elsewhere in doing other things.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced this bill away back in mid-May, he made a rather pretentious claim that this bill was part of the government’s program of deregulation and improving the delivery of services to the public and making it easier for the individual to do business with the government.

All the bill actually does is abolish one board and recreate it as a branch plant of the Environmental Appeal Board. I fail to see how this constitutes deregulation; neither do I see how it improves the delivery of services to the public, nor make it easier to do business with the government.

The delivery of services under this bill will be exactly the same as before, as far as I can see. The same rules of procedure now in the Pesticides Act will apply to appeals under the Environmental Appeal Board, since those sections of the act are not being repealed by this bill.

Presumably, the same people will deal with the appeals, because the minister has announced that he is planning to reappoint all the members of the Pesticides Appeal Board to be members of the Environmental Appeal Board. The only difference might be that the appeal will be sent to a different office for processing, an office which now handles all the appeals of the Environmental Appeal Board. Perhaps its chances of getting lost in the shuffle may thereby be increased, but I hope that is not the case. It is hard to argue that the mere change of address will improve the delivery of services.

In fact, I would like to ask the minister to tell us exactly how much he expects to save in dollars and cents from this change. I suspect it is negligible; I think the minister should have had a better reason, when introducing his bill, to justify this change.

I do know that the procedural affairs committee in November 1978 recommended that the Pesticides Appeal Board be merged with the Environmental Appeal Board and depending on the volume of work and the number of appeals it could make sense, but since the minister’s annual report for 1978-79 is not yet out, we don’t have any up-to-date figures on the volume of appeals. Perhaps the minister can give us that information in this debate.

Mr. Gaunt: Just one last year.

Ms. Bryden: I have the 1977-78 figures; as the member for Huron-Bruce mentions there were only two appeals in that year. In the previous year there were 22 appeals, so it would be interesting to know if the trend to fewer and fewer appeals has carried on in this year. I am not sure if the number of appeals is sufficiently small that we are no longer justified in having a separate board. I am not sure if it justifies having, certainly a full seven-man board or seven-person board, but I understand the minister is proposing to move all seven persons into the Environmental Appeal Board. If the number of appeals is very small a board of that size may not be justified.

Another point is why do we retain the rules of procedure that are written into the Pesticides Act, rather than adopting the rules of procedure that are in the Environmental Protection Act under which the Environmental Appeal Board is set up? It seems to me it will be more confusing to businessmen if they have to make an appeal from the Environmental Protection Act under one set of rules and an appeal from the Pesticides Act under another set of rules.

[3:30]

Some examples of the differences between the rules of procedure for the two boards are the following:

There is a difference in the size of the quorum.

The Pesticides Appeal Board can extend the time for appeals, whereas the Environmental Appeal Board cannot.

There is a provision in the Pesticides Act that all members of the board who participate in a decision must be present throughout the hearing and hear all the evidence; those who participate in the decision must be just those who were present.

There is no such clause in the Environmental Protection Act. It probably should be there, I think in most cases it’s taken for granted, but it seemed rather strange that it had to be written into the Pesticides Appeal Board procedure; a member might have some difficulty saying he was not absent for five minutes of the hearings.

There is also in the Pesticides Act a clause prohibiting what might be considered a conflict of interest. It states that no member of the appeal board can participate in a hearing if he has taken part in an investigation that preceded the hearing.

There is no such clause in the Environmental Protection Act. It seems to me very strange that a member of an appeal board would be expected to participate in an investigation of an incident or an application from which there might be an appeal to the board; yet the minister, by proposing to reappoint and to continue the rules of procedure, is carrying on this possibility of a conflict of interest.

In fact, it seems to me rather incredible that at least two of the seven persons on the present Pesticides Appeal Board are actively involved in the pesticides business. It seems to me there is a possibility of a conflict of interest right there. So I would question whether the minister should commit himself to reappointing all the present members or whether the minister should not look at the possibility of a conflict of interest in such a situation.

Also with regard to the rules of procedure, both acts provide that the persons entitled to participate in an appeal include the person on whom a control order is being placed or the person concerned with a licence or a permit or the possible revocation or amendment of such. Both acts also say that such other persons as the board may designate may be entitled to participate in an appeal.

That is a good clause to have, allowing the possibility of participation by persons who may be affected by the control order or by the terms of the licence or the permit. But such a clause should not be discretionary on the beard; it should be mandatory that people affected by any license, permit or control order should have the right to participate in an appeal. I think this should go through all our environmental legislation, because the victims of pollution may be as affected as the people who are the potential polluters.

When we get into committee, I am proposing to move an amendment to the bill providing for a clause that will make mandatory the participation, if they wish, of persons directly affected by the subject of the appeal.

The only other thing I would like to say is it would have been nice if the minister had also considered abolishing the pesticides advisory committee which is supposed to be overseeing our pesticides policy. Again, I think there are too many representatives of industry so that there is the danger of conflict of interest which does give them the freedom to make recommendations about the whole pesticides industry.

I think the minister should be using his powers under the Pesticides Act to examine the possibility of replacing pesticides with other methods of control. The pesticides are becoming more and more of a hazard in our environment, and there are alternatives. You can develop predators which will not be of a chemical nature; you can develop new forms of crop which will be resistant to the pests and you will not have to put as many chemicals into the environment. However, that is not in this bill. Perhaps the minister will consider whether his pesticides advisory committee is fulfilling the function of trying to reduce the amount of pesticides we have in the environment.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be quite brief, Mr. Speaker. The points made by a number of members deserve some attention.

At the time of this merger, we had only five persons on the Environmental Appeal Board; and with the large number of appeals there we needed an increase of numbers on the boards.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes. We used that as an opportunity to have some of the people who had been on the Pesticides Appeal Board serve on the dual board, because we did need more members there.

The actual saving is $10,000 -- I see that is the budgeted figure -- so there is a saving. Granted it is not the largest ever, but I think it is the right approach and one that all members of this House have agreed to in the committee report. We certainly will be using many of those same people, and the day will come, of course, when the combined boards will be smaller than the two boards separately. I think an orderly transition will occur when the normal terms of office come to a close.

I am somewhat surprised to hear the suggestion that we should eliminate the pesticides advisory committees. It may not be a high-profile one, but it is one whose judgement I personally value a great deal. I don’t hold to the suggestion there are too many members of industry on that committee. I have been at a meeting and I find it a good blend of the academic community, the business world and concerned citizens; so I cannot accept that suggestion. I don’t see that happening at all.

I think when we really look at the Environmental Protection Act it is quite possible that in future we might very well make the two appeal procedures identical. As I understand it, the Pesticides Act came later than the Environmental Protection Act and it had a more up-to-date procedure, if you will. That could well be done at another time in the not-too-distant future; it is a possibility we will consider.

I would hope the amendment proposed will not carry today. I think the purpose of the bill was certainly not window-dressing; it was to accomplish a reduction in the number of boards for very legitimate reasons which we support and in fact all parties have supported. I would hope we would process the bill as printed.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole.

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act, 1973.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Acting Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(4) The Environmental Appeal Board shall, as soon as practicable after the coming into force of this act, make rules respecting hearings by the board and the practice and procedure of the board under the Pesticides Act, 1973 and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing and in addition to the rights, practice and procedures set out in sections 10, 13 and 14 of the act, the rules shall permit and provide for;

“(a) notice to be given to persons who are directly affected by a decision or proposed decision of the director under section 10 or 13 of the act;

“(b) a right to require a hearing by the board for a person who receives notice of a decision or proposed decision of the director under the act or rules;

“(c) a right to status as a party in proceedings before the board for any person who receives a notice referred to in clause (b).”

Ms. Bryden: In my second-reading comments I think I indicated the purpose of this amendment was to open up the appeal procedure to people who may be affected by either a control order or the terms of a licence or permit under the Pesticides Act. I hope it would also be extended to the Environmental Protection Act by appropriate amendments.

I think it is now becoming more and more accepted that the public has as great an interest in this kind of regulatory instrument, the issuing of licences and permits to use hazardous substances, as does the person actually using the substances. The public, therefore, should have the opportunity to have a say in the terms and conditions. If they do not like the terms and conditions they should have the opportunity to appeal them to the appeal board. That is the principle of the amendment. It sounds rather complicated in the wording, however, I would urge members of the House to support this opening up of the appeal process.

Mr. Gaunt: I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine has a good point in so far as opening up the appeal process is concerned and allowing people to exercise rights under that appeal process.

The point was also made previously that when one appeals under the Pesticides Act there would be a certain procedure which one would follow. When one appeals under the Environmental Protection Act, there would be another procedure applicable. It seems to me that uniformity in this case would avoid confusion; most important, perhaps, for the sake of the appellant, but also for the sake of the government. It would certainly be advantageous from the point of view of both parties involved in an appeal to have a uniformity of procedure in both instances. Unless I can hear some strong arguments from the minister to the contrary, I would think this particular motion makes some sense.

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The point is that this amendment won’t put the two appeal procedures into the same method. If anything, as I understand it it will deviate them more. Having made a commitment that there are some amendments coming forward to the Environmental Protection Act, I think that’s the time to address the uniformity issue.

I agree with both the proposer of the amendment and the critic for the Liberal Party that it would be desirable to have them uniform, I don’t argue that case; but I say that by this amendment you don’t make them uniform, perhaps you make them even more divergent. If the Liberal Party would consider that the day will come when we can do that under the appropriate legislation, which at that time would be an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act -- and there are other amendments that we see should come forth in the not-too-distant future -- to me that is the logical time to do so.

I would hope that that logic prevails, because without it we have created a greater difference than we have resolved; we’ve expanded the difference, not contracted it.

Ms. Bryden: If the minister will look carefully at the amendment, he will see that it is asking that the Environmental Appeal Board bring in rules respecting hearings of the board, meaning the Environmental Appeal Board, in the practice and procedure of the board under the Pesticides Act, which is the other set of regulations.

When we’re asking them to make rules under both of those situations, we are really asking for uniformity on this particular point of opening up appeals. Therefore, I think it is a step in the direction of uniformity.

Mr. Gaunt: On that point, to solve this problem, we all want uniformity, that’s what we are talking about. The minister agrees, the member for Beaches-Woodbine agrees and I agree, that we all want the same thing. It’s a question of achieving it. How do we do it?

The minister says if this particular amendment passes there will be a greater divergence than there is now. I don’t know, I can’t pass judgement on that without doing a little more research and work on that particular aspect, but if we could have a commitment from the minister that he will bring in an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act embodying the concepts which we’ve been talking about and including the various points raised in the particular amendment, so that the appeal procedure is more open and is more amenable to people who appeal or who are affected by an appeal, then I think we can have some resolution to this particular problem.

Perhaps the minister could make such a commitment.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m quite prepared to make a commitment that when the Environmental Protection Act amendments appear in this Legislature we will address the differences in the two appeal procedures. There is no doubt that we will need to make them uniform. We will need a major amendment to the Environmental Protection Act; we can’t do it by passing this resolution today, it just won’t do the job. I do make that commitment that we will consider those amendments at what I feel is a far more appropriate time, under an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act rather than here today. You may or may not agree with our proposed amendment; but that’s fair enough, you’ll have the opportunity to deal with that and amend our amendment as you see fit.

I don’t mind making that commitment, that we will consider that and be bringing forth amendments, obviously not during this session of the Legislature but if possible in the next one or as soon as we can. That commitment will stand. We’ll put those amendments at the time we address the Environmental Protection Act amendments.

Mr. Gaunt: That being the case, then I would certainly support that method of procedure. That would resolve our problem and accomplish what we’re all trying to do.

Ms. Bryden: I appreciate the minister considering amending the Environmental Protection Act to open up the appeal procedure. I hope that’s what he meant when he said he would consider bringing in amendments to that act which would consider this principle.

Will he give us a commitment that he will bring in amendments next session? I understand that it’s probably very difficult to do it this session, the time is very short, but it seems to me we’ve been waiting a long time for this kind of opening up. I think the minister has expressed his own willingness to open up the whole matter of environmental standard setting and participation by the public in the whole environmental protection process. This would just be another step in that opening up. I think it’s a long time since we’ve had the Environmental Protection Act opened up along these lines. Would he make a commitment to bring in, next session, some amendments which would consider the appeal process?

Mr. Conway: Just like Sparky Anderson?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, he’s quite happy at home.

Mr. Riddell: Probably more so.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m prepared to make the commitment that we will consider the amendments when the act appears here. There are fairly major changes that will be required in the Environmental Protection Act. I get a little gun-shy on commitments made that give a specific date and then for a lot of valid reasons, not always under our control, we can’t follow through. Then it goes down again as something said and not delivered; that bothers me.

We believe there are changes required to the act, so the commitment is that the act will he opened. When that’s here, then we will proceed with some amendments under the appeal section of it. I just hate to say that I’ll do it in the next session of the Legislature, period.

Mr. Gaunt: But you’ll try, you’ll give it your best effort.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll try, I’ll try to do it. Yes, we’ll give it the best effort, but as long as I’m not pinned with a date that it was an unconditional commitment.

We do see some changes, and those have been somewhat superficially addressed at our offices, but we haven’t fully proposed those major changes and we’re not ready to make that final and last total commitment. As close to it as we can, we will.

I’m being a little vague on whether it’ll be in the next session or not. I’m not being at all vague on whether it will include amendments to the appeal section; that I’m happy to do.

I really think this appeal perhaps needs, in itself, more consideration, because the advice I receive is that it indeed would be a little too vague and require too much interpretation from the courts, I haven’t introduced that today because I don’t think that’s an issue. The more important principle was to make them uniform. I think I’d have to suggest to you this does not necessarily pin it down as well as it should; but I don’t want to get into that debate particularly, I don’t think that’s the pertinent one.

If I can satisfy my critic, we will do our utmost to put it into the act when it appears here; if possible next session, fine.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Any further discussion in regard to the proposed amendment? The amendment has already been placed before us. Is it the wish of the committee that the amendment be adopted?

Mr. Gaunt: I thought it was to be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I didn't understand that. I didn’t hear any motion to withdraw, but the member for Huron-Bruce suggested there might be. I think I should now put the question.

All those in favour of Ms. Bryden’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Bill 86 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Parrott, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

The following bill was given third reading on motion: Bill 86, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act, 1973.

CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Corporations Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: At the time I introduced this, on October 16, I gave a fairly substantial statement. I would like to merely point out there are now 52 farm mutual insurance companies. The reinsurance fund, which is the foundation of their operations, now stands at $12 million. They have asked to do business in the area we are opening up to them, and the select committee on company law has favoured that.

Finally, it is not just a question of being mature and being able to come to grips with this, I think we have to understand, as long as I am the minister, I want the farm mutuals, on the basis of their Ontario capitalization, to gradually expand in a number of directions, as long as their reinsurance and their other capital arrangements will allow.

I think it very significant that this is Ontario capitalization in the insurance field. You can also call it Canadian capitalization. I think it is a very positive measure of providing Canadian competition in a market that heretofore has been dominated by multinationals.

If out of this, as came out of some decisions in the state of Indiana some years ago, we produce another State Farm Insurance Corporation with business, assets and employees around the world, then I think that is precisely what we would like to see in the foreseeable future; provided, of course, the capital and the other bases are there.

From time to time there has been an element of protection considered necessary to the farm mutuals. I would say to members today that we are in a position where I think virtually all the protections or restrictions or limitations can be removed within a very brief period of time.

[4:00]

The farm mutual insurance companies are to be commended for the way they have prepared on a step-by-step basis for expansion. They have kept pace with the changing needs of the rural and agricultural societies in this province. Quite frankly, they have never asked for more than they reasonably felt they could handle. It is indeed with a significant degree of confidence and pleasure that we are removing this restriction, and indeed opening the door to them to move forward as rapidly as their capitalization will permit in the fire insurance field.

Mr. Breithaupt: I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this bill as amendments to the Corporations Act are brought before us.

As chairman of the select committee on company law, I am also pleased that the minister has followed some of the recommendations and suggestions made in our most recent report.

If I may, sir, I’d like to quote some comments from page 133 of that report which may be of interest to members of the House as they look into this legislation. I quote as follows:

“The farm mutual insurance companies described earlier in this report and in more detail in appendix E, originated over 100 years ago to write fire insurance and certain other coverages for farms in their local communities.

“Legislation limits farm mutuals to insuring those risks in their own community which are primarily of an agricultural nature. On the other hand, farm mutuals are exempt from premium tax and from income tax because in serving the needs of farmers in their local communities they are looking after a market not served well by the insurance industry as a whole.

“The Ontario Mutual Insurance Association on behalf of its members requested the committee to support the desire of farm mutuals to compete on an ‘equal footing’ with all other general insurers in all areas of risk. The OMIA came before the committee to point out that the conditions under which farm mutuals now operate in this province have changed and that legislated restrictions on farm mutuals do not correctly reflect these changes.

“In particular, the OMIA pointed out that the sole business in rural communities is no longer farming, whereas the farm mutuals are restricted from insuring risks which are not primarily of an agricultural nature.

“The committee encourages the growth of any insurer or group of insurers willing to meet consumer needs in a particular market segment. The farm mutuals in particular have provided a stable market in farm communities, at low cost with a high level of service. However, the farm mutual insurance companies operate under relaxed taxation privileges not available to conventional insurers. Considering the expansion of farm mutuals into other areas of insurance, the committee’s view is that this expansion must in fact take place on an ‘equal footing’ with other insurers serving the wider market.”

In this bill before us today, we have three particular themes. The first is to remove some of the limitations on powers which have traditionally existed in section 169.

The second is to deal with an expansion of the reinsurance opportunities so that the reinsurance corporation is able to spread its involvement through a broader segment of the market than it presently is allowed to do. At present, it can only deal with the reinsurance needs of the particular 52 companies which are members of that operation.

The third theme deals with the removal of the word “fire” as an integral part of the name of any of these companies, so that that no longer need be the case if the companies might decide otherwise.

In these three themes, certainly the last two cause no problem for me as the critic for this ministry; I say that with the background that being involved in the select committee on company law has afforded me. I would, however, refer to the three recommendations made by the select committee dealing in particular with this first subject, that is the changing of the various powers of the mutual fire insurance companies.

Recommendation 8.21, is as follows: “In order to encourage a proliferation of various types of companies serving the consumer, the committee supports the superintendent in his discussions towards relaxing the legislated restrictions imposed on the business of farm mutuals.” That recommendation has been attended to by the fact that we have this legislation before us at the present time.

Recommendation 8.22 reads: “At the same time, the committee recommends that the growth of farm mutuals into non-agricultural areas of business be treated as a separate book of business and be subject to the same taxes and other conditions imposed on insurers in the conventional market. In regard to the matter of taxes, it may be necessary for the superintendent to request the federal government to re-examine its income tax rules to ensure that special privileges do not apply to farm mutuals or other insurers who have a substantial amount of business in other farm risks.”

Our third recommendation then follows, 8.23: “In considering the relaxation of legislated restrictions on the farm mutuals, there also appears to be an opportunity for the reinsurance market to be opened up for the mutual reinsurance plan to increase its ability to write both farm and any new business farm mutuals may be allowed to undertake. The committee views this measure as desirable so long as any reinsurance assumed on non-farm risks is not subject to any advantage not provided to other reinsurers in the province.”

Fourthly, as I mentioned, there is recommendation 8.24, which says: “In considering the relaxation of legislated restrictions on farm mutuals, the committee recommends that the superintendent also give attention to reviewing the financial or solvency restrictions on farm mutuals. The committee has recommended the review and relaxation of the solvency rules for all general insurers according to their particular circumstances. This same concept implies that the present rules of farm mutuals might continue to be applied with some flexibility to permit the more efficient or financially stronger farm mutual companies to expand their business.”

In the bill that is before us, we find that the majority of these recommendations, which I believe we tried to reach in a co-operative and useful way with the information that was provided to us by OMIA and by individual farm mutual companies, has been, I think, soundly and well developed.

There is the one point that does concern me as it concerned the members of the committee, that is the matter of treating companies on an equal footing. I think this is something that needs to be underlined, because in the minister’s initial statement the matter of the premium tax and the income taxes was not specifically referred to. I would like to hear from the minister in his reply with respect to the views that the committee has suggested concerning the idea of the separate book of business. I think while it is clear that Ontario capital can be developed through the farm mutual companies, it is, of course, as many members of the House are aware, a slow process.

The capitalization and the growth of these companies have been reviewed and commented upon on occasion in this House. Certainly, the superintendent of insurance has shown great responsibility in bringing these companies along as their capital base has allowed them to expand, as they have moved through the reinsurance idea, which they have been able to develop for their own purposes, and now to this next stage, as they broaden their involvement in the general insurance market, in effect, in many of the smaller communities within Ontario.

The matter of equal footing is an important theme. The benefits which the farm mutual companies have enjoyed in being exempted from premium tax and from income taxes are ones which have been conscious decisions so as to ensure that a particular segment of the insurance market was being served. This has developed well and the companies have moved from insuring the farm risk, as such, to insuring additional coverages, not only in expansion of other kinds of business related to farming but now to this next step of the commercial business block in the smaller town.

They are going to have that opportunity. I think that the maturity of the system should encourage that, but I do leave with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the minister, my views of the requirement that these other commercial businesses must be dealt with in the same manner as any of the other insurance companies have in relation to these businesses, and that is that the proceeds from the insurance coverages will have to be, in my opinion should be, subject to the same requirements that other commercial companies have when they are insuring commercial businesses. That means, of course, that I believe the premium tax and the income tax should be applied to that separate book of business.

That is a fair way of encouraging the development of the farm mutuals into this area, but it also does put them then on an equal footing in the proper proportion. I would look forward to hearing from the minister on that point, because if the idea of the separate book of business is the expectation of the minister, then indeed all of the recommendations we have made with respect to farm mutual insurance companies will have been attended to quite promptly by the minister in the legislation he has brought before us today.

I appreciate that this legislation has been brought before the House and indeed is being dealt with on second reading rather quickly, but I think it is understood that the farm mutual companies have welcomed these changes. They have certainly been commented upon and dealt with by the select committee, and I wish the minister well as he brings this legislation and this further development of the opportunities for farm mutual companies in the province to this next stage.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I want you to know that I am just as pleased as the member for Kitchener to have an opportunity to discuss Bill 144, an Act to amend the Corporations Act. It is actually nice to be talking about one of the good guys in the insurance industry when we talk about the farm mutual fire insurance companies, an industry in which the good guys sometimes seem to be few and far between.

In spite of the fact that this act mentions the word “insurance” on more than one occasion, I will not launch into a massive attack of the government’s continuing refusal to bring in a public auto insurance plan in this province, as much as it deserves censure for that, but in fact speak to the bill.

I and my party support the bill that the minister has brought forward, which allows for the continued growth of the farm mutual fire insurance companies.

The companies, as the minister points out and as the Liberal critic has pointed out, were originally set up to provide fire insurance in agricultural areas, for agricultural use, and over a period of time that mandate has been somewhat expanded and this bill is to continue that process. I might add that that process of expansion was a necessary process in those communities.

In that each policyholder in a farm mutual fire insurance company is provided one vote in its affairs, the company is in fact, by my definition, a co-op, and as such is one of those kinds of companies I would like to see operating in the marketplace. The work these companies do is directly in the interest of their policyholders, and that indeed is very rare in the insurance industry -- very, very rare in the insurance industry.

I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if over the next period of time the minister might give some thought to providing a similar kind of insurance business in Hamilton Centre for my constituents in their urban setting, so that they can buy from such nice companies which have the policyholders rather than the shareholders and corporate profits at heart

The question raised by the member for Kitchener, the Liberal critic, is an important one, and I would very much like the minister to respond to the observation about the tax question when he does sum up.

[4:15]

The only less-than-supporting observation I might make about the whole affair is that when the minister introduced the legislation -- I think it was October 16 -- he said, “The industry has demonstrated its financial stability and responsibility towards those whom it insures.”

Some might view that as a rather patronizing statement. I can see their point, because in fact these companies have spent the last century proving they can serve their community and can serve it well.

On that day the minister asked for our support in the passage of this amendment which will provide positive and direct benefit to the rural community of Ontario; the minister has it, go ahead.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make a brief comment or two on this bill. I need not reiterate anything said by the member for Kitchener in dealing with the bill or by my colleague.

I think the crucial point in eliminating the restrictions on the farm mutual companies is the market which they currently serve. The report of the select committee states that they are looking after a market not served well by the insurance industry as a whole. Of course, despite its technicalities, the insurance business is one which relies a great deal upon the assessment of the men and women who run that industry.

I can well recall, and I’m sure my colleague the chairman of the select committee can too, the day we met, along with the superintendent of insurance and the advisers to our committee, with the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. We talked at some length about the continuing availability of farm mutual companies to their original market and the purpose for which the act was designed many years ago, that is to meet that need not otherwise covered, We also discussed the benefits they had by tax concession, because of the nature of that market, and expressed concern that if the restrictions were dropped, they would not continue to serve that market but devote all their time and attention to expansion in general insurance in all its phases, which was the import and intent of the wishes which the association had pressed upon the superintendent for some time,

I’m satisfied, and I think my colleagues on the committee were satisfied, that we have no need for concern: farm mutual societies will continue to look after their traditional markets as they continue to expand their operations. I was impressed with their evident intention to do that, as a prudent business measure and because of a sense of obligation, no doubt a residuary effect of being a mutual type of society. There is no doubt they will continue to do that.

Therefore, I welcome the bill and have no concern about the speed with which it was introduced into the assembly or the speed with which it’s being dealt with. I feel the all-party committee thoroughly looked at this question, and understands and is aware of the implications which this bill has for the farm community in its restricted sense, and the opportunities which this bill provides for the farm mutual companies to take their full place, as we’ve stated in our report on an equal footing with the other competitive elements within the general insurance field.

I, too, will await the method by which the minister is going to achieve the transitional position of these companies with respect to their present tax concessions as they move into the general field, but at the same time to protect the benefits they do have under the tax structure to provide whatever continuing incentive, if any, is necessary for them to serve their traditional marketplace.

With those comments, I am pleased to have seen the selection by the minister of this particular area for his immediate consideration -- immediate in the sense that the report of the committee was tabled just this year. I appreciate that the minister is acting promptly on it.

I suppose what I am really saying is simply that I have confidence in those companies to carry out their traditional obligations and to move soundly and effectively into the general insurance field without the limitations and restrictions that have been imposed for so long -- in the opinion of some, perhaps for too long -- upon this type of general insurance corporation.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Addressing the tax considerations of this bill, first of all in terms of income tax, which is a federal jurisdiction, any insurer going over 50 per cent of its total business in the commercial field will be taxed under the Income Tax Act.

I don’t think there is much possibility in that area, bearing in mind that we have the stop-loss provisions in this act, which means that the smaller companies will be very limited in extra amounts they can sell. Again, in terms of the premium tax, which is provincial, we have informed the corporations tax branch of this impending legislation -- legislation that will be passed today. They are looking at it.

It is really the Treasurer’s prerogative whether this new development or expansion will put the farm mutuals into a position of being liable for premium tax. When we discussed the matter with the farm mutual industry we pointed out we were not in a position to state whether they were going to be liable for either income or premium taxes if they are not now; this would have to be a risk they would take. They said they were prepared to take that risk, even the risk of perhaps an unfavourable decision on the premium tax, which is far more likely.

I don’t think it requires a separate book of business, particularly. I would prefer to have it treated as one, overall book of insurance and that the responsibility lie with them, particularly on the things the member for Riverdale has said about the need for their continuing obligation to serve the market for which they were created. Indeed, even the lifting of the restrictions here is to enable them to serve that market, albeit a market that has spun off from the original market available to them and which they have served very well.

In terms of equal footing, if they become very substantial -- and it wouldn’t take very much for them to become substantial in the commercial field -- then obviously they are automatically going to be on equal footing federally. However, it is going to be the decision of the Treasurer of Ontario, not that of the minister or of themselves, whether they come under the premium tax. I think on any other basis they’re on equal footing. I don’t think we have to have a tag day for the cash mutuals. I think they can still continue to meet this market very well.

Historically, cash mutuals or general companies have not been enamoured with this market at all. I don’t want to penalize them now, but I don’t think this expansion by the farm mutuals, based upon their individual capitalization, is really going to have that much of an impact. It is really a convenience for the consumer in the particular area and it is somewhat of an advantage for an Ontario capitalized insurance company. On that basis, I don’t think it is a matter of unfair competition.

The reason I used the words I did in a statement on October 16 was to make it abundantly clear that over the years the farm mutuals have stood the test of their clients, not so much the community. They have paid their claims. They were in a very solid and responsible fiscal condition. But from time to time I think it is necessary to emphasize that. There is a concept that these are very small, somewhat quaint companies that operate in some of the less populated areas of the province.

They are first-class operations. They’ve had problems over the century or so -- they’ve had some very substantial ones -- but they have overcome those problems. They are in a position today where they must be looked at in terms of maturity, responsibility and fiscal integrity, with exactly the same judgement criteria as is general insurance. That was why I mentioned that.

I hope the day comes, and I think with this bill that day is rapidly approaching, when it won’t be necessary to have to put that in; there will be an automatic recognition.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

REGIONAL MUNCIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker as the minister announced when he introduced the bill on first reading the other day, this act contains a number of amendments to the regional acts. It replaces Bill 114, which was before us in the spring. Unfortunately, we didn’t quite get to it on the last day of the session.

Almost all of the bill is similar to the bill we had before us in the spring. There have been several new amendments added to the bill to fulfill requests of various municipalities since that time. Much of the bill is housekeeping and much of the bill brings the regional acts into conformity with the Municipal Act and with the amendments to the Municipal Act that were made in the spring session.

Many of the amendments are common to all 10 regional acts. For example, the bill will enable each region to contract for insurance to protect the members of its council or any local board, to invest in credit unions, to accept historic documents and to control parking on regional property. It will also increase the maximum rate of interest a regional council may charge an area municipality for failure to pay its levies from one per cent to 1.25 per cent per month. All these amendments are similar to amendments made to the Municipal Act last fall and last spring.

[4:30]

Two new proposals will apply to all regions. One will enable each region to purchase or rent machinery on a long-term basis beyond the term of the council. In addition, each act will be altered to provide that the minister may request the OMB to defer applications for changes to area council composition or wards when there is an inquiry in progress. There are similar provisions in the Municipal Act.

Some of the proposed amendments apply only to certain regions. Where all water and sewer facilities are regional responsibility, the region will be authorized to enter into agreements to maintain and repair pipes on condominium properties. Where the region is responsible for sewage treatment facilities and the area municipalities for local sewers, the region will be authorized to control the discharge from local sewers into regional sewers and treatment plants.

Where the region has all the planning powers, the council quorum for official plan matters will be made the same as for other regional responsibilities. In addition, the region will be able to require that the cost of work ordered by the chief building official under the Building Code Act be levied against the area municipality that collected its taxes from the owner and repaid to the region.

Several of the proposed amendments affect only one region, and most are included as a result of local requests. In Ottawa-Carleton they will bring up to date the names of the area municipalities, enable the ministry to provide a method of selecting Nepean’s representatives to regional council, and will increase the size of the transit commission of Ottawa-Carleton.

In Niagara, the right of appeal against the method used for calculating sewer rates will be removed.

In Waterloo, at the request of the region and at the request of the honourable member opposite in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo a minor boundary change will be made.

Because of the method by which the city of Waterloo selects its regional councillors, a procedure has been provided to deal with acclamation and tied votes. A further amendment will authorize the region to establish uniform sewer rates.

In Peel region, legislation is being enacted to enable the region to delegate industrial promotion to the area municipalities, and an order validated to establish the Mississauga Library Board.

I should say on the Peel region, the bill before the members, as presented, had an error in drafting which gave the area municipalities in Peel more powers than were requested and more powers than were intended. I’ve given notice of an amendment which will put this section of the bill into a form which the Peel regional council requested.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, there are changes being made to the regional transit system.

Finally, two metric changes are being made, in Ottawa-Carleton and York, that were inadvertently left out of the Metric Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act.

I would commend this act to the members of the House.

Mr. Epp: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 152. The bill, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, was before us last June 22. The government at that time didn’t want to take 10 or 15 minutes, which was suggested, to pass the bill, because they had to rush off to a coffee party or something of that nature; I’m not quite sure what it was.

Nevertheless, since that time, we have had a number of changes brought before us. Some of those changes that have been added to the bill have been somewhat monumental in scope. In fact one change regarding Hamilton has been withdrawn so that it can go to committee for further discussion without holding up the rest of the bill.

The problem with the bill before us is that there is no principle to which to speak directly in the sense that it has the multiplicity of changes incorporated in it dealing with sewer surcharges, minor boundary adjustments, a 1.25 per cent interest rate. It deals with clarifying the names of two municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. It deals with credit unions and various other things. So it’s hard to direct your thoughts to one particular principle, or two or three strong principles within the bill.

I must say, however, that I agree with permitting municipalities to increase the interest rates on some of the unpaid taxes of citizens within that municipality. When we were discussing this last spring we discussed 1.25 per cent. This was a quarter per cent increase per month, of course, over the previous amount of one per cent per month, or 12 per cent per annum. This looks like a modest increase but, with the kinds of increases we’ve had in interest rates in the last two or three months, as everyone is aware, the 1.25 per cent that municipalities can now charge looks mediocre in comparison. For second mortgages you’ll probably have to pay about 18 to 20 per cent, whereas before this you could get them for about 12 or 13 per cent; you could get your first mortgages for around 10.5 per cent last spring, but now you’re up to 13.5 or 14 per cent for NHA mortgages. It’s quite substantial. All this resulted from making a change in government last spring, on May 22. That’s quite a package.

We will support a number of these changes. I think a number of them do deserve support, although I don’t think we can support all the changes here. We will be coming forth with an amendment at the right time and place.

Regarding the boundary change that has been introduced here for Kitchener-Waterloo, I must try to clarify the record. I requested of the minister -- in fact, I sent a letter last spring -- that he deal with the boundary changes as requested by the municipalities of Kitchener and Waterloo. I did not request the boundary change. I requested that their requests be processed as early as possible. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this has been postponed an extra four or four and a half months now.

As regards the boundary, Waterloo will benefit by getting a little over 15 acres from the city of Kitchener, and Kitchener in turn will get about 3.1 or 3.5 acres -- something in that vicinity. What it does is help to realign the boundaries and put one particular development by major holdings into the one municipality of Waterloo. This is something that obviously made eminently good sense, to the city of Kitchener, because it was raw land when the request was made and they’re just in the process of putting in some services.

The aspect of including credit unions as one place where municipalities can invest their money if they want to is certainly acceptable simply because we did it for other bills. We did it for other bills because it made eminently good sense. It made good sense because there are a lot of credit unions about the province that are well administered. There are no more problems with credit unions than there are with chartered banks or trust companies; so why shouldn’t they be in a position to benefit by the investment of funds by a municipality if they so desire.

There’s still another aspect which concerns the debenturing by municipalities for machinery and appliances. I’m not sure why there is a distinction in having a five-year term for debenturing machinery and appliances that a municipality might purchase and a 10-year term for the purchase of road building machinery. I’m not sure why there has to be that distinction between the two, unless the roadbuilding machinery is expected to last that much longer and therefore debenturing can be spread over 10 years and will still be in fairly good shape when that debenturing is completed.

It’s the same as roadbuilding. For instance, municipalities can debenture costs of a particular street if they wish, and the term is 10 years. As you know, Mr. Speaker, having been a municipal politician at one time, and a very good one --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Don’t let that last remark throw you off your train of thought.

Mr. Epp: No, I was going to say in a kind of kidding way, with all due respect, that you were misled along the line thereafter, but I didn’t want that to be taken up the wrong way.

The municipalities can debenture for 10-year streets and the streets usually last 15 to 20 years if they’ve been looked after, the pot holes that may have developed have been filled up and so forth.

It’s with mixed feelings I say on behalf of this party we will be supporting, certainly most of the changes in here. However, I do want to point out that we in this party do not believe all regional municipalities have to be uniform, yet what we see here is in large part an effort by the government to make them uniform.

I know they can cite instances -- examples are Haldimand-Norfolk and Sudbury -- where the planning responsibilities are in the upper tier as opposed to other regions where they are on the lower and upper tiers, but in large part there is an effort here to make them all the same.

When I was chairman of a task force this party had two years ago that went about the province, one of the striking features we discovered in all the regions was that they wanted a kind of government in their area that was not really based on a model acceptable and working relatively well in Metropolitan Toronto; they wanted one that was developed and moulded for the needs of the local areas. At that time they told us we should look at the needs of the local municipalities and base the structure on what the local needs are rather than have these various acts applied from on high.

The acceptance of regional government in the province is anything but good.

Mr. Bradley: To say the least.

Mr. Epp: There are people here who are hoping and praying daily that the subject of regional government will go away.

Mr. Bradley: But it won’t.

Mr. Epp: It won’t, simply because the people of this province who are very much concerned about it really haven’t warmed up to that subject. They might in 100 years. I won’t be here, and neither will the members opposite to tell me how wrong I was back in 1979 about the subject.

Mr. Rotenberg: We will still be here as the government.

Mr. Bradley: The member will still be as arrogant as ever, no doubt, but he won’t be a member of the government.

Mr. Rotenberg: Not us; we are just quiet, trying to do our job.

Mr. Epp: It is a concern of ours and we will be proposing some amendments as the date progresses. During the months ahead I suppose this House will have other opportunities to discuss this subject and I will have a great deal more to say about it at that time.

Mr. Isaacs: This is certainly an omnibus bill in more senses than one, because it deals with omnibuses in my own regional municipality. But the changes being proposed in this bill are relatively minor compared with the changes that we have been suggesting should be looked at in regional government.

I want very quickly to run through a number of concerns I have about some of the components of this bill, and I hope the parliamentary assistant or the minister later on will see fit to respond to some of those concerns.

On the application of section 26 of the Municipal Act in regional municipalities, this act provides that the minister may delay an application for changes in ward boundaries while region reviews are going on. Our concern is that region reviews have been conducted in a considerable number of our regional municipalities and yet no action has been taken on any one of those.

[4:45]

I hope the minister will enlighten us as to what the process is and what the timing is for this amendment. Again, to take my own regional municipality, it is considered that the review of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth is still going on, as I believe the minister indicated to us that it is the other day. Does this amendment mean that no changes to ward boundaries could be considered and no changes to items like board of control could be considered until the region review is put out of the way? If that is the proposal then I think what it is doing is imposing a burden on municipalities that want to review their own structure rather than having a review conducted at the provincial level. I hope there can be some clarification of that, perhaps discussion when we go through the bill clause by clause, because it is certainly not clear to me at the moment, from this bill, exactly what the government has in mind.

On the liability insurance component of this bill, I really don’t see this as being the way of doing it. What we are doing in this bill, and we have said this before, is allowing the private insurance industry to take further advantage of elected and appointed officials of municipal councils. While I recognize there is a problem and recognize that appointed officials in particular are in a position of some risk when dealing with the public for statements they may make or may be assumed to have made, I don’t believe that encouraging municipal councils to pour money into the private insurance industry, to provide liability coverage in the millions of dollars -- and we’re talking about millions of dollars of insurance coverage, because many of the projects that are handled by appointed officials are million-dollar projects; that kind of insurance coverage seems to me to be an incredible waste of public money when there are other ways of dealing with the situation.

The members of this House and provincial government officials in general are covered by mechanisms that do not involve expenditures of public money in the same way that this liability insurance coverage does. It seems to me that what has happened is the insurance industry has developed a new kind of insurance coverage and has very effectively sold that to the government and to the municipalities, and we’re seeing tax dollars being poured into that kind of insurance coverage when in fact the insurance could be made unnecessary. I hope the minister or his parliamentary assistant will see fit to respond to that.

Historic documents and parking on municipal property are very much in line with the Municipal Act and in line with the beliefs that we on this side of the House hold, and we have no objections to those sections.

The change in the interest rates that can be charged for overdue taxes is something we discussed previously. We did not oppose it when it was being dealt with for other regional municipalities. Of course the change in interest rates that we have seen in the six months since we last debated this matter in the House leads us to seriously question what’s going on with the economy and how the government is handling the economy of this province.

I would prefer to see the matter left open-ended to allow the municipalities to adjust their rates, but in view of the fact that one and one quarter per cent per month, or 15 per cent per annum, is not out of line and that it is permissive -- in other words that municipalities may charge less than that if they so wish -- we are not prepared to stand in the way of that particular amendment.

It does concern me, though, that the amendment deals not only with tax penalties on individuals or corporations that are overdue, but also with tax penalties on other municipal councils within a regional government system.

It seems to me that if a regional council is overdue in its payments to a lower tier council, or vice versa, then to start pouring taxpayers’ money into paying those tax penalties is not a very useful way to go. I would hope that both regional councils and lower tier councils would be sufficiently responsible that they would not get into a situation where moneys owed to each other are overdue and they are having to transfer tax dollars between one level and the other in order to pay the penalties. That just seems to me to be not a responsible way to run regional government.

Investment in credit unions, we in this party support wholeheartedly and welcome. It’s a move in the right direction. I would hope that all our municipalities would regard this as a matter where affirmative action is needed and that we will see some major shifts from the banking sector to the credit union sector as far as municipalities are concerned. It disappoints me that in the months since the previous amendments to the Municipal Act were dealt with in this House I don’t believe that a single municipality has taken advantage of a credit union. I think that’s disappointing and I hope they will review that.

On the matter of purchasing or renting machinery, it amazes me that a matter that involved a legal situation has been let go so long. Municipalities at the regional level appear to have been acting illegally ever since they were established. It’s incredible that it has taken five years to get this amendment for Metropolitan Toronto before us in the House.

On condominiums, I think my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) will be making some comments. The change is certainly in the right direction. It’s a change that will permit a condominium association to contract with a municipality for maintenance of facilities. As I am sure the minister is aware, we believe that the matter should be taken very much further and that condominiums should receive additional benefits from the municipality rather than being subject to double taxation as they are at the present time. That’s something about which we have considerable feeling.

Many of the remaining sections are not of great concern to us and I won’t take the time of the House to speak on them at the present time. The amendment with regard to section 12 of the Planning Act is something we welcome in view of the fact that it’s a problem that should never have been allowed to exist in a democratic system. Democracy seems to me to imply that a decision is made by a majority of those who are there rather than by a majority of those who could be there. That’s something that is fairly fundamental to the process we have.

On the matter of English or bilingual forms in Ottawa-Carleton and in Sudbury, which is dealt with under two sections of this act, we are concerned that this appears to be a piece of permissive legislation on the part of the ministry. We believe that the minister should be required to permit these forms to be in a bilingual version. In fact right across the province, all municipal forms, where required, should be available in either English or French. I hope the parliamentary assistant will give a commitment, as he did when we were discussing a previous bill, that the minister will provide these forms. We in this party would be satisfied with such a commitment because the commitment would be on the record. But if there is not such a commitment then we will be introducing an amendment to provide for our views on this matter.

With regard to the adjustment in the method of regional representation for the city of Nepean, we are concerned about the concept of delegating to the minister a matter of representation on a regional council. In the past the structure of regional councils has been dealt with by this Legislature.

I am aware that in this particular case there is a problem in negotiations between those who will become part of the city of Nepean and those who are on the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton. However, I would very much hope that the matter could be resolved in time for legislation to be introduced into the House, in which case the minister’s order will not be necessary. I hope if it is expected that this section is to be passed very soon the minister or his assistant will dictate to us how the minister intends to exercise the powers which are conferred upon him by this section if the future city of Nepean and the Ottawa-Carleton regional council are not able to reach agreement.

I really don’t understand how the minister will come to a decision as to which side to take. Will there be compulsory arbitration or will there be final offer selection? How indeed will the minister decide how the city of Nepean should be represented on the regional council if the two groups presently in dispute are not able to reach a solution?

With regard to the change in membership of the Ottawa-Carleton Transit Commission, I have had some conversations with individuals in that regional municipality. They assure me it is a satisfactory approach, and indeed the transit commission should better be able to deal with the problems of the region if its membership is enlarged as proposed.

With regard to the right of appeal concerning calculation of sewer rates in Niagara, it continues to concern me that in cases where there is a dispute between a lower-tier municipality and the regional council, the impression is given that the regional council is allowed to overrule the concerns of lower-tier municipalities.

Mr. Bradley: A travesty of justice.

Mr. Isaacs: I think this is a fundamental problem with the regional system as it is structured at the moment. As has been suggested, we probably need a far greater review of regional government than dealing with these kinds of issues in a haphazard manner that appears to be riding roughshod over the rights of the lower-tier municipalities.

Mr. Bradley: We have got to review it right out of business.

Mr. Isaacs: If disputes do arise, then we need to get to the root of the problem rather than taking away the right of a lower-tier municipality to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, I hope the minister will be prepared to justify his actions to this House, to the people of Niagara, and to the people of those municipalities in Niagara who feel they are being roughly treated by this section.

Mr. Bradley: Hear, hear; glad to see the New Democrats have joined us now.

Mr. Isaacs: The matter of industrial promotion in the regional municipality of Peel gives us very great problems. There are already many hundreds of thousands, probably millions of dollars, being spent in this province by municipalities competing against each other for the same industrial development. What this amendment proposes is that even within a regional municipality the lower-tier municipalities will be able to compete with each other for industrial development. The item was left out of the bill, presumably a drafting error, but it is my understanding that an amendment will be presented when we go through clause by clause to make the section read as the briefing notes suggested it should have read. That gives us very grave concern.

It seems to me that there should be much greater co-ordination of industrial promotion so that tax dollars are not being used by neighbouring municipalities to compete for the same growth, and indeed by municipalities outside the Metropolitan Toronto area to lure growth away from Toronto. Sometimes we are not even dealing with growth, we are dealing with industry moving completely out of areas where it is presently serving the people very well into other areas of the province where tremendous costs are imposed upon the taxpayers for that industrial growth.

Of course there is need for development around this province, but that development should be co-ordinated.

Mr. Mancini: You can’t trust those socialists.

Mr. Isaacs: It should be put in places where it serves the people of Ontario to the very best. To encourage municipalities to set up industrial development commissions to lure growth from their neighbours, even within regions, and in this case within the region of Peel, is something we just cannot tolerate. We will be dealing with that at the appropriate time.

With regard to the city of Mississauga Public Library Board, we come back to a legal issue I know has consumed the time of a lot of members of this House. Those who are of the legal profession probably understand the issue far better than I ever will. I am aware that it relates to the matter of retroactive regulations and that that matter has been dealt with time and time again by the committees of this House. Indeed even this summer, one committee was spending time discussing whether a minister has the ability to issue retroactive regulations. Of course, it’s appropriate that the minister’s error be corrected in this way and that the city of Mississauga be permitted to continue the excellent library system it has in place, but it bothers me that we have to go through this kind of amendment to correct errors made by previous members.

[5:00]

Finally, on the regional transit system in Hamilton-Wentworth; yes, the amendment is a good one, but I hope that regional council and all other regional councils will realize their very serious responsibility to all residents of the region, and that we will not see this kind of amendment again becoming a battleground between one part of the region and another as to where transit service should be located and who should be allowed to operate regional transit service or private transportation services where no public bus service is presently being provided. I sometimes believe regional councils do not take seriously enough the burden, the authority, we place upon them to deal with issues of this kind and, in fact, these kinds of issues degenerate to a very low level with one part of the region fighting with another part of the region.

In principle, this amendment is absolutely excellent and allows for co-ordination right across the region. I want to say to the minister that he does have the potential to encourage public transit to be yet another component of the battle going on. I hope the minister and his staff will use all their good graces to encourage Hamilton-Wentworth to deal with things in a responsible manner and to ensure that public transit, and indeed all services, are provided in an appropriate way to all residents of the region.

In summary, the bill deals with a lot of basic housekeeping issues, some of them more important than others but, nevertheless, issues which do touch upon the problems facing regional government. But it doesn’t in our view, go anything like far enough. We’re still standing here waiting for the government to tell us what its philosophy of regional government is and why we deal with these things in such a piecemeal fashion when we have so many regional government reviews waiting for proper attention and so many problems with regional governments right across this province. We’re looking forward to going through this bill on a clause-by-clause basis and to discussing some of these issues in a little more detail.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would express the concern some of us on this side of the House have at the way this bill was presented today to this House. I recognize that the bill in another form, substantially the same, was presented to the House in an earlier part of the session -- in the spring sittings -- and that, along with other bills, we had the opportunity at that time to evaluate some of the changes that were proposed. However, I think there was an assumption on the part of some members of the House that this bill would be reintroduced in a somewhat new form and that there would be sufficient time for members once again to evaluate the changes proposed.

The first time I saw Bill 152, as it is called now, was this morning. This bill was delivered to my office today. Without having had time to consult with many of the people at the municipal level, we are supposed to deal with this bill this afternoon or this evening, make a judgement on it and pass it.

I’ve had the opportunity this afternoon to make a couple of quick phone calls back to my municipality to gain some input on it but, because they were unaware of the fact that the bill would be called before the House today, the people within the municipality were unable to provide the kind of in-depth analysis of the provisions that would have been beneficial to those of us in the opposition and, would have indeed, permitted those in government who have the same responsibility to speak on these bills to do so in a meaningful manner.

There are, however, a couple of provisions in this bill I find repulsive. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has alluded to the fact that we are not entirely happy with all the provisions of the bill. The member for Wentworth (Mr. Isaacs) has zeroed in on a few areas of the bill which he feels are of some concern. One concern he shares with us is the provision that talks about the right of an area municipality to appeal the method by which a sewage rate is established.

The Speaker is no doubt aware of the long history of discontent with regional government in the regional municipality of Niagara. The member who sits in front of me in the House at the present time, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), was one of two members in the Ontario Legislature -- the former member for Niagara Falls, Mr. George Bukator, was the other -- who spent some time opposing the region of Niagara bill at its inception. Indeed, it was the members of the Liberal Party in this House who wanted a one-year delay in the implementation of that bill so we could avoid the kinds of situations that exist at the present time.

Our friends to the left, the New Democrats, along with the Progressive Conservative government at that time, decided that regional government should be implemented in the regional municipality of Niagara and therefore we have it.

Mr. Haggerty: They favoured regional government then. There’s a change of heart now.

Mr. Bradley: We in this party accept the fact that the years of experience have given them the kind of wisdom and knowledge necessary to oppose regional government in its present form and we certainly appreciate the support we are receiving from the New Democrats in this regard.

The provisions of greatest concern to us are those in sections 23 and 24 of Part II of the bill, which refers to the regional municipality of Niagara. Section 23 establishes control over all the sewage within the regional municipality of Niagara. If our local engineer had the opportunity to evaluate this, he might express some concern about the fact that the region shall deem what goes into the sewers, even though it may be going through city sewers and then joining into regional sewers. This is the nonsense of having two levels. It provides that, by passing a bylaw, the regional council will have the capacity to say what shall go into the sewers and what shall not.

We would be very concerned about that, because we have had experiences in the past where the region hasn’t made decisions that have been beneficial and reasonable in terms of the city of St. Catharines.

I could not be in favour of section 24, which leaves the region to determine the method by which the sewer rate shall be established. I realize it is not the rate itself which will not be subject to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but the method by which that rate is established.

Our concern dates back to our former agreement with the then town of Thorold -- now the city of Thorold -- which we felt was very beneficial to both municipalities. Upon the imposition of regional government in Niagara, the region determined that the city of St. Catharines should pay substantially more and the town of Thorold substantially less. Consistently, we have had to put up with a regional council that is largely very parochial in its thinking.

We in St. Catharines have had to pay the lion’s share of the costs of regional government, and the people I represent are fed up; they do not wish to see one more power given to the region. Section 24 is giving the region that power, without recourse to the Ontario Municipal Board. So I can’t support that section, and when we have the opportunity to deal with the bill section by section in committee, I will not be supporting the provisions of sections 23 and 24.

I would like to move an amendment later to abolish the regional municipality of Niagara, but I think the Speaker would no doubt rule that kind of amendment out of order.

Mr. Epp: A very worthwhile amendment.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, if I were to do that, I would receive 100,000 letters from people all over the regional municipality of Niagara approving that particular motion. But I wouldn’t challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether or not to rule that out of order.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, regarding the previous speaker’s plan for fixing up regional government, there is a difference between a simple solution and a simpleminded solution, although I don’t suppose that will stop them from putting that forward in each election as long as we have regional government.

Once again we are faced with a regional municipality amendment act that doesn’t deal with the real problems, the real issues; that is just an attempt to treat, and not all that well, a few symptoms, ignoring -- if I can use my mayor’s favourite word for regional government -- the disease. He is at times a bit extravagant, being a Tory.

I noticed the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs flitting about the House a while ago. I’m not sure if he’s still around, but if he isn’t I’m sure the parliamentary assistant will take my remarks back to the minister.

Mr. Bradley: Look for a halo.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Like all the other members who have spoken from this side of the House this afternoon, I would also like to tell the minister I don’t much like regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth either. I don’t think the government has done a very good job with it.

It’s not good enough for the minister and the rest of the government to sit on their collective hands hoping that somehow the discontent in the community is going to evaporate. It’s not going to, and the reason it’s not going to is because there are very serious flaws in the way in which regional government has been implemented.

Some are uncorrectable now. They’ve gone on too long and we’re never going to find solutions for them. But there are some instances in which the government can and, I think should move. The Tories and the Liberals foisted this form of government on the good citizens of my riding and my area, and now they seem totally unwilling to do anything about it, They sit there with a total lack of will to move towards some sort of agenda for change. They have a regional review, then we get the kind of statement we have from the minister last week in terms of what’s going to happen, and we get this bill, which deals with a few small problems and doesn’t deal with them properly. That’s not good enough.

This government lacks, and lacks so badly, the qualities of courage and vigour which one expects to see on occasion in a government in the 1970s in a dynamic province like Ontario. Hopefully, we’ll be having an election in the very near future and we’ll be able to correct that problem.

Mr. Mancini: I wouldn’t want an election too soon, if I were you.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’m ready. Let’s go.

Mr. Mancini: I think that 14-vote majority is pretty shaky. I think we’re in a delicate position.

Mr. M. N. Davison: If we go now, we can double that to at least 28.

There are three items in this bill I want to comment on specifically. I agree with my colleague from Wentworth when he talks about the movement of securing some sort of liability insurance for members of our councils and local boards. I really don’t understand that. Do you know what it looks like? When you consider the arrangement here and how satisfactory that is, it looks like an excuse to hand out some money to somebody’s friends in the insurance industry. The insurance industry is not so poor that it needs a gift like that.

I realize it’s a problem at the local level. This isn’t the solution we should be coming up with. Surely, with all these clever people on the other side of the House, these self-professed clever people on the other side of the House, we should be able to find a solution which will provide that kind of protection without lining the pockets of the insurance companies on some kinds of contracts they’re going to be dreaming up. I don’t think we should be issuing the insurance companies with this kind of blank cheque. They don’t need our help.

I would hope the government would address itself to the real problem and find some sort of legislative solution other than this kind of giveaway.

[5:15]

The second matter is the question of condominiums. I am not going to disagree with what the government’s doing because allowing condominiums to contract that kind of service will help a bit. But, again, even when the government dealt with a specific problem within the regional municipalities it dealt with maybe 1/20th of the problem we’ve run into there, the problem of double taxation on condominiums.

Over the past 10 years, the government has seemed reluctant to move to help the condominium associations and condominium unit owners. We see that, not only from the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, but also from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That’s not good enough. These two ministries -- indeed, this government, has a responsibility to do something; to put themselves on the side of the condominium unit owners, ordinary working people. It’s time this government stopped abusing them. It’s time something was done on a more major scale rather than this little bit of play acting we’re involved in. The government has been abusing those people for years in this province and it does not serve well that they give them this tiny little handout.

The final matter I want to comment on is the matter of credit unions. I think it’s probably the single most useful and important initiative taken here. As my colleague from Wentworth said, even though the municipalities have the capacity to be members of credit unions, not all that many of them have taken advantage of it, and that’s a shame.

In the riding of Hamilton Centre, as in most of our ridings, I suspect something like 25 per cent of the population are members of and shareholders in the credit union movement. I can’t speak for every other riding in this province, but in Hamilton Centre the percentage of constituents who are shareholders in the banking system is a good deal less. I think it’s time we did something to promote the credit union movement in a practical way. This is going to be good for the movement. I wouldn’t be totally facetious if I suggested maybe the minister should have made it compulsory, or looked at some other method of further encouragement. But it is a good step, and I think the minister deserves to be congratulated on that.

Those are my comments on this bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on some of the comments, particularly those made by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley); I support his views.

We were trying to get a copy of the bill this morning, because it was not in my office. We tried to discuss it at some length in caucus but we had nothing to discuss because the bill wasn’t there.

It reminds me of the introduction of the first regional bill back in 1969. Everybody in the House was anticipating that the government would move in this direction. We tried to obtain a copy of the bill because we wanted to know what was in it. It didn’t come forward until some time late in the day. We debated it through second and third reading and continued in to the early hours of the morning. This bill reminds me of almost the same circumstances: the minister has brought it in at the last moment and expects somebody to stand up here and know what’s in the bill.

If you look at Bill 114, Mr. Speaker, it only consists of some 23 pages. The revised bill before us this afternoon contains 38 pages, so some place along the line the ministry has added amendments to the interpretation of the act.

My main concern is with a couple of sections of the bill where conflicting viewpoints seem to be expressed. For example, under section 67, one of the amendments permits the regional council to collect costs incurred under section 9 of the Building Code Act, 1974, through the area municipality in which the building is situate. Section 9(4) of that act permits a municipality to repair and demolish unsafe buildings at the owner’s expense.

I can’t see why the region would want to get involved in something which is more parochial and should be left at the municipal level where there are local fire inspectors who can condemn a building or say whether or not it’s safe. I suggest that we’re only going to compound problems between a region and a local municipality. I would even suggest that that section should be withdrawn from the bill. I don’t see where there’s any benefit to be gained by it. That may be another area where municipalities might want to do a little buck-passing to the region and say, “It’s your responsibility.” The region’s going to say, “No, it’s yours.” I can see no advantages there whatsoever.

The other matter is concerning sections 7, 23, 37 and 52, where “the added subsection 2 permits the regional council to pass bylaws for prohibiting or regulating the discharge of matter into sewers or treatment works under the jurisdiction of the regional corporation. Subsection 3 provides that in the event of conflict with an area municipality bylaw, the regional council bylaw prevails to the extent of the conflict.” That may be causing some serious difficulties as it relates to the Environmental Assessment Act.

I suggest that the minister should take another look at that particular section of the proposed amendments. A municipality may not want to have a certain type of chemical or fluid go through its treatment plant. What it says here is that the regional council has the power to do what they darn well please. I suggest they shouldn’t have clear authority in this particular area. It’s an area where the public has perhaps more to say in this particular matter than elected officials.

The other one that is of concern is section 23 and 24, which was explained in some detail by the member for St. Catharines. The appeal procedures that are suggested in the new act are major changes. As the elected representative in the Niagara region representing the riding of Erie, I cannot accept these: to give the powers that the government wants to give to the regional council here takes away all rights of appeal from a local municipality. If the parliamentary assistant isn’t quite aware of the point I am making, there’s an instance in the regional municipality where the city of Port Colborne was charged excessive sewer rates. They were the highest of any municipality within the region. I think the member for St. Catharines said there should be some more uniformity in this particular area of charges for sewers and water treatment.

In this particular instance, the city of Port Colborne had objected to the regional municipality for two or three years, saying the rates were too high. Nobody down at the region would pay any attention to them. Finally, they had a meeting with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. I guess they met with some of the staff of the ministry at that time through Mr. McKeough the then minister. Through their audit, I believe it was, they found that the city of Port Colborne was being charged twice for the same service. I’m talking about a few hundred thousand dollars in this instance. Perhaps this is one of the reasons this section is in here: the regional council thought they didn’t have to pay or reimburse the city of Port Colborne for the extra charges that were cast upon them.

When we put in this amendment, we may have a similar problem crop up in another municipality. It could add additional costs, away above the average, to the region. These municipalities, and particularly the taxpayers, have no right of appeal. As it is now, they can be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board; that’s an important board in our democratic system. Where there are objections, taxpayers have a right to appeal any government decision; I’m talking about municipal government now. I think it’s important that we maintain that right of appeal through our appeal system here, for any municipality. When we deprive a lower tier municipality of the right of appeal, then I think we’ve gone beyond the boundaries of our jurisdiction in that area. The Ontario Municipal Board plays an important role. I think it can be an unbiased body on this particular item, to arrive at a fair decision of assessment of costs for services put forward by the region.

Based upon those viewpoints, I cannot endorse the two proposals in sections 23 and 24 of the bill, because they deprive the local municipalities of their rights of objection to the costs involved that the regions may want to put on them.

When I look at the Niagara region, the costs some of these municipalities have to carry today are unbearable. Eventually, I suppose, I could support the member if he moved an amendment, this afternoon, that we dissolve or disband regional government in the Niagara region and perhaps go back to the two original boundaries we had previously. I think there would be merit in that.

When I look at the regional municipality of Niagara and see that we have two area school boards, one for Niagara south and one for Niagara north, perhaps there would be some advantage to going back to those old boundaries. We could be using the same computer, we could be using the same services and office facilities as well as other facilities the school boards may have. It has merit.

I am surprised that the members to my left, who have been strong proponents of regional government, are all of a sudden seeing the light and moving with some caution. I suppose, if they had to vote over again, they would vote against regional government. I can think of one member of that party, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who I have often said was the godfather of regional government in the Niagara region. I can see his change of heart now. I thought perhaps this afternoon he would be speaking on some of these issues. I am sure he would be opposed to these two particular amendments suggested by the minister.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support those two amendments to the bill as they relate to the Niagara region.

There is also another area the minister should be looking at. When he brought in amendments to the bill, he included three or four different regional governments. That can be rather confusing to the members when they have to relate to the parts of the bill dealing with Niagara, Peel, Ottawa-Carleton, Kitchener-Waterloo and so on.

It is very difficult to debate a bill such as this on the spur of the moment, with such short notice. The minister should give the members more time to get into it in more detail. It may be called a general housekeeping bill, but I feel there are some things that will still be contentious in the next year or so.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am being prevailed upon to make a few comments and, of course, I do so willingly because of the fact that part of the bill deals with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

I would like to say to the parliamentary assistant that, as a member who has the honour to represent one of the ridings within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, I have seen amendments brought before this House on repeated occasions and I have seen different commitments made by a variety of ministers and a variety of parliamentary assistants about some of the proposals they had intended to put into legislation.

I recall in the past year or two that we, having certain initiative, have said for instance, the regional chairman should be an elected official. I recall discussing that with the then parliamentary assistant, who I think was the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), and receiving an undertaking that if we didn’t propose it at that time, the next legislation coming forward would contain such a proposal. So we backed off.

Here we see the legislation coming forward, not only affecting Ottawa-Carleton, but also the other regional municipalities, and that legislation is not there. I could go on about other amendments we talked of.

I want to say it’s awfully tempting to say: “Look, we are going to propose certain amendments. We’re going to take the initiative here. Let the onus be on the government to withdraw the bill if it is not satisfied with the amendments proposed.”

[5:30]

Undoubtedly, the member is aware that in Ottawa-Carleton it’s not all wine and roses. There are problems in Ottawa-Carleton. The problems in Ottawa-Carleton stem from a variety of reasons. They go back as far as the time of the establishment of this region, the attempt on the part of the then Duke of Kent, the Honourable Darcy McKeough, to impose his stamp on this province. Of course, the fusion of rural and urban areas that took place at that time should have been more selective. They should have realized that, if there is going to be a region, one should try to encompass people, or at least entities, which have as many things in common as possible, whose priorities are similar, because then the cohesion on the part of the regional area is much easier.

Unfortunately, what has taken place in Ottawa-Carleton -- and I suspect the same thing has taken place in other regional municipalities in the province -- is the fact that the rural and urban areas which were fused did not have the same priorities. Some 10 years after the start of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, we have some area municipalities that are saying, “Look, we want out of this setup. It’s not responding to the needs of our citizens. We think we should have an opportunity to vote ourselves out of this.” I can just see the boys here in Toronto, the powers that be, saying, “Yes, well, fat chance of that. Good luck.”

If we keep having these problems, the government may have to look at some of these things. I will say this: This government has some difficulty learning a lesson. It learned a lesson after 1975 and after 1977. That’s when it put the brakes on the establishment of further regional areas in this province.

Mr. Mancini: Which year was that?

Mr. Roy: It was 1975 and 1977. In 1977, honourable members may recall, the Premier (Mr. Davis) tried to get his majority back, but it didn’t quite work out that way. But I am digressing. I want to stick to the principle of this bill.

I want to say that just the government’s backing off on the establishment of regional governments is not an easy answer. Just because they say they won’t create any more and thereby hope not to antagonize anybody else in this province, that’s not going to be the answer.

Mr. Mancini: That’s strictly political.

Mr. Roy: As my colleague says, it is strictly a political move. We know the intention is still there, the mens rea. The honourable member will understand that. The mens rea still exists in the minds of this government.

I say to the parliamentary assistant that he had better keep a close watch on the existing municipalities. It is not all happiness down there. He had better start listening to the wishes of the local municipalities.

I see one of my colleagues from the area. He will support me on this as he usually does, because he is a man who is objective, although somewhat misguided at times. But most often, when we get into regional areas, he knows what I am talking about, how some of the small municipalities and especially the rural municipalities are dissatisfied by the present process.

Mr. Bradley: Didn’t they vote to secede a little while ago?

Mr. Roy: That’s right. In Ottawa-Carleton, a motion was proposed. Maybe, I want to say to the parliamentary assistant, we should have amendments in this legislation saying that if a municipality wants to secede, to get out of the regional form of government, it should be entitled to do so, as long as it is done in a democratic way -- which, I want to say, is going to be far more democratic than the way in which they went in, because that was not democratic at all. That’s the type of amendment we should be proposing in this legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would refer to the sections in the bill rather than what should be in the bill.

Mr. Roy: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the sections in the bill are not all that interesting. That’s why I digressed a little. I just want to remind the government of some of the things we should have in the bill. I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that he should listen to some of the views of my colleagues or some of the municipalities within these regional areas.

One of these days, some of this legislation is going to come forth. We will come forward with amendments and try to correct what we feel to be the deficiencies within these areas. We are starting to get the evidence now. I suspect, if we wait all this while, we will not see it come from the government. They have failed to do so in spite of promises to us over the past two years.

One of the matters of great interest and importance, especially to the area of Ottawa-Carleton, is the acceptance on the part of the government now that certain forms and bylaws will be passed in both the English and French languages. In fact, I think it’s within the legislation that certain oaths will be administered in both languages in certain areas. I say it’s something that makes sense. It certainly makes sense in Ottawa-Carleton. It’s something we think is important. It’s high time it came forward, and we applaud this initiative on the part of the government. Especially in the area I represent, there are certain municipalities like Vanier where all discussion and participation is bilingual or in French. At the regional level as well, some of the proceedings taking place could be in both languages. We think it is an initiative that deserves our support, and we will be supporting these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, having made these few brief comments, I appreciate your indulgence. I was close to missing this opportunity. It was only because you told the parliamentary assistant to sit down and give me an opportunity, that I am on my feet now.

Mr. Rotenberg: My pleasure. I’ll always let you speak.

Mr. Roy: I don’t know if my colleague for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) has spoken on this: whether he’s had an opportunity to make his comments. I think he should be given an opportunity to say whether he will support my comments about the problems in Ottawa-Carleton. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to relinquish the floor to him.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly pass up the challenge placed to me by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I am quite familiar with the problems that relate to regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. I think it is incumbent on our government to look at these problems and try to resolve them in some way or another.

These problems stem from representatives in the urban areas who are somewhat insensitive to the rural needs and the rural issues that exist within the region. Recently there have been meetings and a lot of talk in relation to conservation areas, designation of conservation areas, and planning issues in general in the rural areas. Quite frankly, it is felt by the rural representatives on regional council and by municipal councillors who don’t have the luxury of sitting on regional council, that the urban people just don’t know what it is all about in the rural area in terms of planning issues.

Mr. Conway: Neither does the OMB, given the recent reversals.

Mr. Sterling: This lack of understanding has led to disillusionment by a lot of the residents of the rural areas.

There is also another problem which has never been resolved, and I don’t know on whose doorstep this falls. I refer to the understanding by local people as to what economic benefits or obligations they have incurred by the implementation of regional government. I think there should be a study of the economic benefits of regional government similar to the one done by Palmer in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

I think it is incumbent upon this government and the municipal governments involved to explore these issues. I would hope the minister would look at this act and amend it at some time in the very near future. I hope he will look at the suggestions in the Mayo report about changing around the representation on regional council to those recommendations that he included in his report. I think if that were done there would be a quietening down of the issue. It would basically change the majority on regional council and would perhaps permit greater understanding by the regional council of the rural concerns.

I would hope the minister would bring in, in the near future, significant changes to the regional structure. I would hope, in summary, that he would bring some analysis of the economic situation in the region so people can understand exactly what benefits they are getting for the money they are paying. I think this should be done as early as possible.

The rural municipalities were successful in the regional council in bringing a motion recently to look at the situation, but those same rural municipalities have not offered an alternative form they wish to go to. They haven’t offered any kind of structure they can go to, and I think it is incumbent on them to bring forward some solutions, as well as complaining about the existing system.

One thing a lot of people do not look at in terms of regional government is what is the alternative to regional government. Really, the alternative to regional government is amalgamations on a grander scale than has been taken on in the past.

Mr. Mancini: Not true.

Mr. Sterling: If you talk to the residents of the city of Nepean or the township of Gloucester, they would probably prefer a two-tier system under regional government than to have amalgamations take place.

So, although the public and the municipal politicians complain about regional government, they often do not have solutions that would replace it with any meaningful governing body.

I would hope the minister would look into these suggestions and resolve them as soon as possible.

[5:45]

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to make several comments concerning Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities. Some of the members have highlighted very well some of the points in this particular bill and some of the changes they would like to make. I think the fundamental point concerning this bill about regional municipalities is about all of the problems we’ve had with regional governments since they’ve been implemented. I believe the first regional government was implemented back in 1968 or 1969 and several others thereafter.

This program of regional governments was stopped after the 1975 election. All of us know very well why the implementation of regional government was stopped in 1975. The people of Ontario told the government of the day very directly that they did not want another tier of big and expensive government. They wanted to retain something they felt was important to their community; that is, local government which is accessible and local government whose expenditures could be more controlled.

I happened to be on a task force formed by the Liberal Party a couple of years ago. We toured the province of Ontario and visited every regional municipality. The concerns of the citizens who came out to speak to our task force were the same and their concerns were very clear. They were concerned about the inaccessible, large departments of the regional government. They were concerned about the new level of bureaucrats that had taken over. They then found out that what they had was a senior bureaucrat from the region talking to a senior bureaucrat in the province of Ontario. Instead of having their local reeve or mayor bring the concerns directly, what they found they had was a new level of highly paid bureaucrats doing this work for them.

The only people who came to those meetings to speak in favour of the region were the highly paid bureaucrats themselves. It was the same story everywhere. They came and defended the region. There wasn’t any lineup of ordinary people in the hall speaking in favour of the region; just the highly paid bureaucrats who, I’m sure, were there protecting their own interests.

When we look back at the way regional government has been implemented we can see very clearly that the area represented by the inventor of regional government, Darcy McKeough, was never regionalized. He never wanted to subject the people of Chatham to a regional government, although he subjected many other people in other parts of the province to a regional government.

Thank goodness for the 1975 election, because the government also wanted to subject the county of Essex to regional government. It had a report done by some professor from England with whom I had the opportunity to speak. I tell the minister, I was never so disappointed. I don’t want to be too critical. Maybe the word “disgusted” is too strong, but I’ll use it anyway. We hired this professor who had come over from England. In one fell swoop, he wanted to change the lives of the people in Essex county. He wanted to change the way they viewed government, a government they had grown up with: local municipalities handling their own affairs, working through a county system which can and should be updated. But no, he wanted to have all of that changed, because he felt it was in the best interest of the people; he felt it would be more efficient. He felt this and he felt that. What the local people felt appeared to be of no concern to him.

That study cost, I believe, well over $100,000. They wanted to regionalize Essex county. That report sits where it belongs: on a shelf, gathering dust. I hope I never see the day that Essex county gets the same type of regional government we have in Haldimand-Norfolk, Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton or in Sudbury.

We can tinker all we want with Bill 152. We can make minor amendments, and we can make sure bills are printed in French and English if that’s what the region wants. We are not addressing ourselves to the fundamental concerns such as the fact that people who live in regions feel alienated; they feel they have lost a level of government they could deal with and they gained a new level of government which they find expensive and distant.

When my colleague from St. Catharines said he wanted to move an amendment to Bill 152 that would abolish all regional governments, I think he caught the sentiment of the way some of us feel. I am sure he was correct when he said if he moved that amendment he would receive hundreds of thousands of letters from people in the Niagara region.

It must concern us somewhat, and it surely must concern the members of that side of the House who have been solely responsible for the implementation of regional government -- the gentlemen and ladies over there have been solely responsible --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Didn’t you vote for it?

Mr. Mancini: -- for removing a form of local government that worked, and implementing a new, expensive tier of government which people do not like. Those members have been responsible.

The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) covers his face and pretends it is not a problem. Isn’t he concerned at all that there are hundreds of thousands of people living in Ontario who have been subjected to regional government and who have told the government almost on a daily basis, through their elected representatives and local officials, they are not happy with regional government? Doesn’t that concern the government members at all? It doesn’t concern them at all.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Sit down. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Mancini: Their response to the taxpayers’ concern will be to dilly-dally around, have a fellow do an expensive report on the Ottawa-Carleton region and alleviate their concerns by pretending in that way to be doing something. Then the report will be put on a shelf to gather dust.

The government will do the same type of report on Hamilton-Wentworth to pretend it is doing something; and when the report is completed, it will put that on the shelf and let it gather dust.

The fundamental question of why people aren’t satisfied and why they are unhappy living under regional government is not addressed by the government -- not at all. If I were the Minister without Portfolio, I would work on my statements. I would spend the whole afternoon working on how I could get up in the House and make a statement that would be acceptable to the Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now back to the legislation.

Mr. Mancini: I’m sorry. Thank you for bringing me back on track. I want the government of the day to know that as long as we can we’re going to stop the government from implementing more regional government. The taxpayers of Ontario are afraid of the Conservatives. They know that the minute there was a Tory majority, we’d have regional government from Windsor right through to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That’s not the case. You should retract that. You should be embarrassed.

Mr. Mancini: We know the government is very sensitive on this issue.

Mr. Foulds: All four members present are sensitive on the issue.

Mr. Mancini: I’m sure they have taken a poll. I’m sure they’ve spent the taxpayers’ money to take a poll. Bill 152 is just more tinkering with a system that hasn’t worked, will not work and is awfully expensive. That will be their legacy over there: Big government, big spending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the member for Essex South completed?

Mr. Mancini: Yes, I think I’ve covered many of the points I would like to cover. I see it’s getting close to six o’clock. I’ll close my comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in the debate?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will take more than the three minutes left. We might consider it six o’clock now.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) indicated in his remarks he would have some amendments. I have received several from his colleague from St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). If there are any other amendments he is proposing, would he be able to give us notice of those amendments so we might be able to have a look at them, as is the normal practice of the House?

The House recessed at 6 p.m.