DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT
ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
CITY OF TORONTO ACT
Mr. Hodgson moved, on behalf of Ms. Fish, second reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, 1982.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, we should wait until the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) gets here.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, we should but --
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In deference to the member for St. George it is my feeling we should wait for her to address this bill. She has obviously been held up at dinner. We should go on with another bill so that we can hear her words of wisdom with respect to this. She felt very strongly about it. We would very much like to hear her words of wisdom on it.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect and for the information of the honourable member, I point out it is not my responsibility to ensure attendance in this House. Everybody knows the time the House resumes and that time has arrived.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is not unusual, as the honourable member knows, for someone to substitute in moving second and even third reading of a private bill. This is what we are doing. The order has been set up and was on the desk of every member during the day so it would not come as a surprise to any member that we were going to move second reading of this bill.
Mr. McClellan: Not knowing who has the carriage of the bill does create certain difficulties for us.
Mr. Rotenberg: I do.
Mr. McClellan: There seem to be a number of people who may or may not have the carriage of the bill. I hope if the acting House leader is here with somebody who has the carriage of the bill, that person would introduce the bill and make the introductory remarks on second reading and be prepared to answer some questions when we move into committee. I also understand that the government does have amendments, which may not be correct. It is a little difficult when the opposition parties do not know who is on first.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: I've seen you fellows bring in private bills and never speak to them once.
Hon. Mr. Gregory: It is in order for someone else to move second reading of a bill, which has been done by the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) and I think the member should not worry. We will have someone to carry this. If it is moved into committee, it will be carried and I believe represented by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg).
I believe the bill has been moved for second reading, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It has indeed. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: We cannot wait a minute. The motion has been put.
Mr. Foulds: Do we have agreement on that?
Mr. Lane: It has carried.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: Do you want to talk about the bill or not?
Mr. Barlow: If you have something to say, say it.
Mr. Rotenberg: On a point of order: We know we don't debate second reading of private members' bills.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you resume your seat? The question, with all respect, has been put.
Mr. Epp: On a point of order: We were led to understand the member for North York was introducing the bill, but that the member for Wilson Heights was to carry the bill and had a statement to make with respect to it. We were waiting for that member to make a statement and it was our intention to hear him out.
Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to your sense of fairness to permit the member for Wilson Heights to make a statement. With your putting the order very quickly, he never had a chance to make that statement. We were led to believe he was going to make that statement.
Mr. Speaker: As you know, I am not privy to whatever arrangements may have been made. There was a lot of discussion, which was completely out of order, but there was a lot of discussion prior to my putting the question. Everybody had ample time and certainly everybody knew what the question was. There is nothing out of order.
Mr. Epp: Well, the whip said he was carrying the bill.
Mr. Speaker: That is not my responsibility, with all respect.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On private members' bills, it has been normal practice that there are no speeches on second reading. They carry and then we may go into committee of the whole. It was my intention not to speak on second reading, but to move this into committee of the whole. Later in the evening it will be in committee of the whole, at which time I will be answering any questions and making a presentation.
Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: With all respect, there is really no point of order.
Mr. Foulds: There will be. I put it to you that the honourable member --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: There is a motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been put.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: And carried.
Mr. Speaker: Now I am waiting for somebody to give me some idea what the disposal of this bill will be.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT
Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Mr. Kennedy, second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.
Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.
I attended when this bill came before the committee and the council of Mississauga came in to speak on it. We agree that council should be able to pass bylaws pertaining to dog control, barbed wire fencing, parking and places of amusement.
In regard to clause 1(a)(i) of the bill, that a dog should be controlled unless it is on the owner's property, or on land of a neighbour who has allowed the dog to be there, and in regard to subsection 1(b) which I think is commonly called the poop and scoop law where one cannot allow a dog to mess around in the city, I think council should certainly be able to have control over those dogs and to see that it is the responsibility of the owner to clean up the act of a dog if it has been leaving things on the street, which dogs have a habit of doing.
They should also have the right to control barbed wire fencing. Barbed wire fencing is good enough fencing in the country and is used quite extensively. I am quite familiar with barbed wire. I feel the council should have control. If the farms are close enough to the city that it could be dangerous to children, it should have the power to keep them from using barbed wire.
I am quite familiar with barbed wire. I have been cut with it myself. I know it can be a dangerous way of fencing, but in the right place it can be good fencing. We have no hesitation in supporting that section to allow them to control barbed wire.
As for parking on the street for large trucks, I see no reason why those trucks should not be controlled. I understood from the council when it came in that it was not going to keep them off the streets altogether. It would allow them to park for a reasonable amount of time, but if they were going to stay overnight or several days at a time, it did not want this to happen.
As to controlling places of amusement and fees, we see no problem with allowing the council to have control to run these facilities or set the fees the way it sees fit.
With those few words we support this bill on second reading.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
8:10 p.m.
DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 9, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, has the --
Mr. Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights. Sorry.
Mr. Epp: Oh, he does want to talk.
Mr. Speaker: An opening statement.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, it has been the normal practice in this House, although it is certainly not in the rule book, that we do not talk on second readings of private bills, but on government legislation we do.
Bill 9, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, is almost the same as Bill 172, which was given first reading on November 23 last year but died when the House prorogued in December. The main purpose of the bill is to alter the method of selecting the council of the district municipality of Muskoka.
As at present, the mayors of the six area municipalities will be members of the district council. All other members of the district council will be elected directly either from wards or from an entire area municipality. All of the district councillors so elected will also be members of their particular area municipal councils. Neither the number of representatives from each area municipality on the district council, nor the total number of members on the district council, will be altered by this proposed legislation.
We are making several minor changes to the provisions of the act that was before us last fall. The first is that the town of Gravenhurst's three members on the district council will be elected from the entire area municipality rather than from wards, as suggested in Bill 172. This change has been requested by the Gravenhurst council and is supported by the district council.
The second change from last year's bill is that the clerk of Muskoka Lakes township will have until July 1 of this year instead of April 1 to inform the assessment commissioner of the boundaries of the township's polling subdivisions. This is being done to avoid problems for the clerk because the existing nine wards in Muskoka Lakes are being reorganized into three new wards. I point out that this change in the method of selecting the members of the district council has been endorsed by the district council of Muskoka, and, in effect, we are acceding to their request.
This bill also makes several other minor amendments that will be in other regional legislation coming forward later in this session. These include a method of changing the status of area municipalities, provisions for resignation and for disqualification of district councillors and a change in the term of debentures.
Mr. Speaker, I would commend this bill to the House.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill because it is somewhat important, particularly for the Muskoka area. Those members who have travelled in Muskoka, as I am sure everybody here has, realize that it is one of the nicer parts of the province, aside from Waterloo county.
[Applause]
Mr. Epp: I see I have some supporters for that comment even on the government side of the House.
Quite seriously, we have a lot of nice areas in the province, and Muskoka certainly is one of the nicer ones. Many of us have vacationed in that area, and we appreciate the hospitality that the fine citizens of the area offer to the citizens of the province and the country, and to other North Americans who have cottages there.
We also realize that when Muskoka makes certain requests of this Legislature they often are able to have them acted on more quickly than do other parts of the province, and I am sure it is no coincidence -- and I am sure you will appreciate this, Mr. Speaker -- that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of this province happens to come from that fine area. When he has certain requests, he just lets the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) know about these things, sometimes he even has conversations with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and they just sail right through. I am told he even wanted to exempt Muskoka from all the new sales taxes, but that is one item on which he failed.
We know that the district form of government wrought in this area some time ago established a greater bureaucracy. The parliamentary assistant will take strong objections to my comments, probably, but essentially there is regional government in that district. I spoke to three leading members of the community, and asked, "How do you perceive the difference between a district government, which you have in Muskoka, and the regional governments which have been wrought on areas such as Ottawa, Haldimand-Norfolk, Niagara, Hamilton, Waterloo, York, Peel and Durham?" The man who answered said, "I do not see any difference whatsoever. It must be very subtle indeed."
Mr. Hodgson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member is saying that regional government was wrought on York. York county asked for regional government, unanimously, back in 1969. Do not ever forget that.
Mr. Epp: I appreciate the comments from the member for York North. I presume he will take advantage of the opportunity that is given to him in this debate tonight to speak at length about the difference between the district of Muskoka and the regional government of York, and to point out the various differences which exist between those two municipalities.
Mr. Hodgson: I speak for the people of York, not Muskoka.
Mr. Epp: Nevertheless, it was wrought on most of the people in Ontario. The member for York North will probably agree with me that if we had had a plebiscite, or a referendum of sorts, when regional government was brought in, it would have been heavily outvoted and some kind of --
Mr. Hodgson: I do not think the people knew any more about it than the Liberals.
Mr. Kerrio: They did have a plebiscite. They bounced all the Tories out of those areas.
Mr. Epp: That is right, most of them anyway. I was just trying to be accurate. I appreciate the honourable member's comments. York is probably an island in the province where some of the people were in favour of regional government. I can assure the member that was an isolated case. Certainly in Waterloo, Hamilton --
Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill, please.
Mr. Epp: We are speaking about a form of regional government, Mr. Speaker, and I am right on topic.
Certainly people in the other areas were not too enthralled with the idea of having that form of government.
We are told by the parliamentary assistant and by the descriptions in the bill, as those who have had an opportunity to read the bill will know, that we are going to have direct election in Muskoka. In consulting with a number of people in that fine area, I have found that although a good number of people are supportive of that particular point, some of them are opposed to it.
If there is to be direct election, I feel we should go one step further, because the government said: "This principle is great until you get to the chairman of the region. He does not have to be elected." Somehow or other he has God-given powers.
The first chairmen of each region were appointed directly by the province for a period of three years. The wisdom that chairmen have, even if they are subsequent chairmen and not Conservatives as all the first chairmen were, comes from some God-given powers and they should not be elected by the electorate. They should be elected only by the people who are in that particular horseshoe or council.
We on this side of the House are strongly in favour of democracy and feel that the chairman, although he is not elected at large, should at least represent some constituency, some ward or whatever, which represents a given area and a number of people in that particular municipality.
We can understand if one carries this principle to the region of Toronto, or Waterloo or Hamilton -- and, Mr. Speaker, your area of Peterborough has not been blessed with regional government, and you can thank your lucky stars for that. We all know the former Premier of this province wanted regional government but he did not want it in London. We know that a former Treasurer of this province wanted regional government, but he did not want it in Chatham --
8:20 p.m.
Mr. Haggerty: Everywhere in the province but Chatham.
Mr. Epp: So there are some kinds of differences here. Nevertheless those are facts and nobody has been able to explain them to us yet, but maybe some day, about the year 2010, we shall get the explanation.
Mr. Eakins: Stay out of the former Premier's areas.
Mr. Epp: We shall be introducing an amendment to this bill when it comes up in committee, so that true representation is given to the chairman of the region. We think the chairman is an important person and that he should represent some elected area. Otherwise he is at a disadvantage. We really believe strongly in democracy, to the point of having chairmen of regions elected; just as the Premier of this province represents a riding and the Prime Minister of this country represents a riding. Let us legitimize them.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the legislation before us. I think it needs an explanation. Normally, as with a bill of this nature and, as a matter of fact, on first reading of the bill, it occurred to me that this was a normal adjustment to somebody's municipality, that there are several proposals in here that seem to be rather minor in nature. On talking to some people who are elected and others who live in the area, it seemed it had gone through the normal process. Proposals of this nature, in a weird way, almost by osmosis, go from Queen's Park to the local area and then back to Queen's Park. At the end of that process, supposedly, a consensus has been formed around any given issue or number of issues.
It seemed to me to be reasonably close to the truth to say that, on this side, a consensus has evolved uncomfortably and reluctantly. Somehow there was a feeling that a consensus had to come; that some pain would be involved; that not everybody would be happy with it, and that in a couple of years, or maybe even a year from now, people would ask: "Why did we do that? What made us move towards those alterations?"
The district we are talking about here, the district of Muskoka, is one that, for some period now, has gone through a gut-wrenching change. In part it has not much to do, I suppose, with the structure of the local municipal government, but has to do with the area itself and its changing nature. That particular part of the province changes regularly in terms of population. During the course of the week it is usually considerably less than it is on the weekend, according to the season of the year, although that is changing.
It is a difficult area to govern, one that has had its problems during the last little while. As the previous member said, it is not really a region but it has a regional government, and is associated with all those difficulties experienced by everybody who lives in an area of Ontario that has a regional government.
It came down, on reflection, to looking at the kind of process at work here. Among the people I spoke to, almost all of them did not like one or two things in this particular bill. I guess the one that struck me as being most significant was that although it would seem to be a logical kind of academic exercise to rearrange the representation patterns as proposed in this legislation, in the end many people in the rural areas felt they were losing in some way, and they would not have the kind of local government they wanted. It might be rational and it might be academic and it might seem quite clearly on paper to be a reasonable way to proceed, but somewhere they had a gut feeling that the principle of this bill went against them.
I do not know what it was that twigged in my own mind, but I suppose it was my experience in my own area, when this same process occurred. There had been ongoing discussion for some period over some fine tuning to local government, and then great planning discussions and great studies took place. When it got down to the mechanics of how the new region of Durham would be set up, somehow we all felt that, though we were generally supportive of the principles behind those changes, it had got away from us.
At the time, we said, "No." It reminded me of many of the people who were speaking to the principles that are in this bill, who felt that somehow there are things wrong in Muskoka. Somehow local government is having difficulty dealing with this problem and the people who live in that area are having some difficulty relating to their closest level of government. In some magical way, though they have participated in this process, they all seem to wind up with a consensus which everyone agreed was flawed. There was a reluctance to jump on the bandwagon with this.
Perhaps those people in that area are just reflecting what many people in the public generally feel about government in total, which is that somehow it does not reflect what they want. They feel they do not understand the process, that it is too complex, that they are overgoverned, that local government has a difficult time responding and that, particularly in financial terms, it has a difficult time responding.
As I went through this exercise of trying to find out what people in Muskoka thought of this particular legislation, more and more unease about the changes came through. Even those who felt that they had to play a role in it, those who were elected or people who were leaders in their community and had to participate in the process, expressed that same unease.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when one looks at redesigning, making changes to local government, that unease should not be there. If there are differences of opinion they should be clear. People should be able to say at the end of an exercise such as this that on balance they are all satisfied that changes are as good as can be agreed upon.
They should be able to do that with a clear conscience. The process itself which lays out the principles that are in these changes, and there are a number of them, should result in a process which makes people feel good at the end. They should feel fulfilled. If they had their opportunity to state their objections and there were valid arguments pro and con, in the end the changes should reflect something which will improve the local situation. It is my opinion that the consensus on this bill was brought about reluctantly and that the problems are inherent. Some of them are not even addressed by this particular change.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will not support this legislation. We understand that we are probably running against the tide of normal affairs because the normal process did occur here. I guess what I am really saying is that in addition to being against some of the principles that are expressed in this bill, we are very much against the principles about the way such acts are put together, and the way such consensuses are formed. We see some difficulties with that and I think that a year or two years from now there will be more people joining me in my opinion tonight that this bill is not going to do anybody any good. If that is the case, then it should not be supported.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, really two points have been raised. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has raised the point about the way the chairman of this particular district -- and I assume he is applying the principle to others -- is chosen. The honourable member has indicated that when we go into committee of the whole House he will be putting amendments to that. Rather than have the debate twice, I will comment on that when we hear the honourable member's argument on his amendments.
I assume the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is talking about the main portion of the bill, which is about the way the members of the regional councils are being chosen. I point out that the regional council is virtually the same as in the previous legislation, except for one distinct difference: up until now, and in the present regional councils, the regional councils were chosen by the members of council. In other words, they were elected from their ward or municipality to the regional council by virtue of votes; then the local council selected those persons who went to the regional council. Each constituent municipality was allotted so many people on the regional council.
The totals on the regional council do not change. The only thing that has changed in this bill is that the members of the regional council, instead of being chosen by their fellow councillors, are being chosen by the electorate at large. This is a principle which I understand the third party has espoused from time to time in other municipalities. It is a principle they have wanted, and it is a principle we as a government and as a ministry have indicated is open by option to municipalities that request it.
8:30 p.m.
The district of Muskoka has asked that their members of council be elected directly; we therefore have allowed that request and are passing legislation at their request. This was done by two separate councils; it was done before the last election and then was ratified by the new council after the last election. I do not really know what the member for Oshawa is complaining about in the process, but we are responding to what is a very legitimate request from an elected municipal council, and we feel that the request should be acceded to and that they should be allowed to have direct elections to their regional council.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill will pass.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered for committee of the whole House.
ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of Bill 28 is to implement the 1982 unconditional grants and apportionment policies announced by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) in January of this year at a meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
In general, the bill proposes the following: It will increase the general per capita grant rate to $11 for all municipalities; it is now between $7 and $9, according to the size of the municipality, and $10 to regions. It also provides for paying the density per capita grant and police per capita grants, where applicable, directly to area municipalities. It will change the treatment of certain per capita grants and the apportionment of regional costs among area municipalities and will permit the payment of police per capita grants to municipalities that receive policing services by agreement from another municipality.
In a little more detail, the first proposed change affects the general per capita grant rate. Currently, nonregional municipalities receive general per capita grants at rates ranging between $7 and $9, according to the population of the municipality; regional municipalities now receive $10 per capita. The change to $11 will eliminate the difference in rates between regions and nonregions, simplifying the grants by eliminating the rate schedule and providing additional assistance aimed at smaller municipalities that are experiencing significant cost pressures.
The increase in the general per capita grants will range from 10 per cent for municipalities and regions to as high as 57 per cent for the very small municipalities outside regions. Currently, the general per capita grant, the police per capita and the density per capita grants are paid directly to the upper tier and then subtracted from each area municipality's share of regional costs according to the amount received on behalf of each area municipality. The proposed amendment would allow the density per capita grant to be paid directly to the area municipalities.
Similarly, the police per capita grant to regional areas without police forces would also be paid directly to the municipalities providing the services. In the Ottawa region, for example, where each municipality has its own police force, each would get its own per capita police grant on the per capita basis. This also affects the county of Oxford. The rest of the per capita grants would continue to be paid to the upper tier but would be treated as general revenue of the region.
These changes are being proposed to promote a common-level upper-tier mill rate across each region. I stress that there will be no shifts in the tax burden in so far as individual ratepayers are concerned; the total tax bill for lower and upper-tier purposes will not vary as a result of these changes. Those regional and district municipalities that apportion their upper-tier costs by using their own formula, as is currently the case in Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and Muskoka, may continue to allocate the per capita grants they receive to the area municipalities in the manner used in the past.
The final change contained in the bill will allow for the payment of police per capita grants to municipalities that receive policing services by agreement from another municipality. At this time, at least one of these types of arrangements exists, and several other municipalities have expressed an interest in entering into similar agreements.
In summary, the measures contained in the bill not only will help to ensure the economic viability of all municipalities in Ontario but will also further simplify the unconditional grants program for regions and nonregions alike. The changes, I might add, have received support from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. From the outset, we should indicate that this bill comes before the House every year with some minor amendments. Every year the general dissatisfaction expressed from this side of the House, which echoes the dissatisfaction expressed by the 835 municipalities of the province, is made without any real response from the government.
I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, of what the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) said with respect to Bill 9, dealing with the district municipality of Muskoka, and he said it on more than one occasion: "This is exactly what that municipality asked for and therefore we are giving it to them because they asked for it." Then we find that in a bill such as Bill 28, dealing with the unconditional grants to this province, almost everything municipalities have asked for, the government refuses to give them.
Just for the record, let me introduce some of the comments made by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, following the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with respect to transfer payments. They are as follows:
"In response to the provincial government's announcement on January 28, 1982, that municipalities will receive an average 10.5 per cent increase over the amount budgeted for municipalities in 1981, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario wishes to indicate that while the need for fiscal restraint is well understood, it must be emphasized that municipalities are facing costs that will rise at a level at least equal to inflation, which is currently approaching 13 per cent. This will mean that municipalities will be compelled to either reduce services and programs or increase tax levies at a rate greater than the current rate of inflation if present service levels are to be maintained.
"The association is disturbed that once again the provincial government paid little heed to the municipal budgeting timetable when making the transfer payment announcement. This, of course, means municipalities that are already involved in their budgeting process must do so in the total absence of any knowledge of provincial transfers which form an essential component of municipal revenues. This reccurring problem is one that the provincial government should take immediate steps to resolve.
"The association is extremely disappointed at the lack of information on specific allocations that accompanied the transfer payment announcement. In order for municipalities to prepare their budgets in an effective and efficient manner, detailed information through a comprehensive breakdown of the allocations by program is required and was expected at the announcement, as has been the case in previous years. There was, for example, no indication of even an inflationary increase with respect to the general welfare assistance payment. Thus, municipalities can only guess at the amount they must budget and incur a serious risk of budgetary deficit.
"In the past, the association has enjoyed the opportunity of participating in confidential preannouncement discussions with the provincial government and urges that this process be reinstated next year. Early municipal input means that many problems can be resolved before being incorporated into government policy."
Then they go on to say: "With regard to the police per capita payment, the association finds it unacceptable that the government chose not to transfer additional funding for municipalities providing police services and, further, took no action to remove the discrepancy between payments for regional police and lower-tier police, each of whom bears similar costs. The need for additional funding of police costs has become crucial in light of recent arbitration awards over which municipalities have no control and which have the effect of inflating police salaries far in excess of inflation rates. This in turn results in other municipal staff demanding similar increases. These increases often do not relate to wages in that area or to the municipality's ability to pay."
8:40 p.m.
I particularly want to address my remarks this evening to the differential in police grants to municipalities in nonregions and those that are incorporated in regions, with the exception of the region of Ottawa-Carleton. When we look at some of the figures that have been provided to us, we find there are three essential things we should look at when we address this topic.
First of all, the grants to regional or area municipalities as proposed in this legislation again show a differential of $5. In other words, if one is in a nonregional area, again with the exception of Ottawa-Carleton, one does not have to have the same kind of policing. Somehow or other, when people cross the border from a region to a nonregion, they do not commit the serious crimes they commit in these areas. That is what this is saying and therefore the local municipality, if it is in a nonregional area, does not need as much money to deal with police matters.
This has come about since the formation of regional government. If one is in an area that has a regional structure, it has more sophisticated crime and therefore needs more sophisticated police work.
The other point that should be made is that, although it is an unconditional grant, it is somewhat contradictory in itself because it says "unconditional police grant." Most municipalities direct it towards police purposes and regard it as such, and in most cases have to add additional funds to meet the needs of the people for security purposes in those areas.
Looking at some of the figures, we find that of the amount provided to the Metropolitan Toronto and regional municipalities at an annual rate of $17 per capita, Metropolitan Toronto gets about 45.4 per cent in 1982-83, for a total of $37,216,060; Durham gets about 5.7 per cent; Haldimand-Norfolk, 1.8 per cent; Halton, 5.2 per cent; Hamilton-Wentworth, 8.5 per cent; Niagara, 7.7 per cent; Peel, 10.1 per cent; Sudbury, 3.3 per cent; Waterloo, 6.4 per cent; and York, 5.4 per cent.
We find that the total for the Metropolitan Toronto government and the nine regional governments is $80,532,757. That constitutes, if I remember correctly, something in the area of 72 per cent of the total amount given by the province for its unconditional police grant.
There are municipalities that are not regionalized, in addition to the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton which are, that receive $12 per capita; they are, for example, Vanier, Nepean, Gloucester, Rockcliffe Park and all the other cities such as Brantford. I see the member who represents Woodstock. He will be glad to know his municipality is not regarded as highly as Mississauga. I see the member from Mississauga who should feel quite proud that his municipality has $17 per capita for policing purposes and the member who represents Woodstock only gets $12 for his municipality.
Mr. Wildman: How do you justify that?
Mr. Eakins: There should be no difference.
An hon. member: What does Punkydoodle Corners get?
Mr. Epp: I do not know, but it probably gets 12 per cent if it is nonregionalizezd.
North Bay, for instance, got $1,343,388 in 1981-82. For 1983, they will get $1,348,728 because they are nonregionalized and therefore get only $12 per capita, a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of dollars in this case. That is a considerable amount of money.
Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that your area of Peterborough gets $744,540 this year, again a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I were you, since they have shortchanged you again, I would lobby strenuously with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) for some kind of fairness in this.
Where is Lindsay? It is not even mentioned. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) will be interested in knowing that London gets $3 million --
Hon. Mr. Eaton: What about Strathroy?
Mr. Epp: Strathroy is not a city; so it is not listed here.
London gets $3,174,588; again, it is severely short-changed by the province.
If we were to look at all the regional municipalities that get $17 per capita as opposed to those municipalities that have to be satisfied with $12 per capita, we find that it would take $12.4 million to make up the difference. With a deficit of $2.2 billion in a budget of $22 billion, I see that not even the cancellation of the jet could make up the difference.
Hon. Mr. Eaton: You have spent that jet many times over.
Mr. Epp: Does the member want me to mention Suncor?
Hon. Mr. Eaton: You have spent that a few times, too.
Mr. Speaker: And now back to the bill.
Mr. Epp: Speaking to that point --
Mr. Speaker: Speak to the bill, please.
Mr. Epp: The member for Middlesex mentions the fact that I am spending Suncor over again --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would rather hear you talk about the bill, please.
Mr. Epp: Speaking to the bill, I find this amount is included in the total budgetary expenses for this province of $22 billion. If we include Suncor in that, that is about 40 times. So how many times did the government spend Suncor money?
The expenditures for the 98 other towns, villages or townships would be $6,806,988. So there is a difference of $12.4 million that the government should find just in the money they waste and that it might give to the municipalities to be spent wisely on police services, for example, which every law-abiding citizen of this province would prefer.
The regional grant of 1982-83 of $17 per capita is only 1.8 per cent higher than it was in 1981-82, yet the costs for policing at a local level have increased much more than that. The police grant on a per capita basis for those municipalities receiving only $12 on a per capita basis has increased by only 0.8 per cent, less than one per cent, from 1981-82 to 1982-83
With regard to the per capita grant, I think we should look at some of the comments being made by various people who are very knowledgeable about this, particularly in regard to a shortage of money that goes to nonregionalized municipalities.
For instance, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said in one of its statements that "AMO supports the removal of the discrepancy in grant levels for regional and municipal police services."
The response of AMO to the provincial transfer payments announcement in 1982 states: "The association finds it unacceptable that the government chose not to transfer additional funding for municipalities providing police services and, further, took no action to remove the discrepancy between payments for regional police and lower-tier police, each of whom bear similar costs.
8:50 p.m.
"The need for additional funding of police costs has become crucial in the light of recent arbitrary awards over which municipalities have no control and which have the effect of inflating police salaries far in excess of inflation rates. This in turn results in other municipal staff demanding similar increases. These increases often do not relate to wages in that area or the municipality's ability to pay."
We then have to refer to a report of 1978, which was asked for by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), entitled "Report of the Special Consultant on Police and Other Services to the Administration of Justice in Ontario." That report by Mr. Emil Pukacz, the consultant, gave a number of recommendations.
Mr. Eakins: What happened to that report? It is still on the shelf.
Mr. Wrye: Gathering dust.
Mr. Epp: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, because there is a very important principle here. A consultant is hired and is led to believe that somebody is going to listen to his report; that the report is not just going to gather dust on the shelf. Yet we find, as with so many reports requested by this government, it is received, tabled in the Legislature and for the next five years the government defends why it is not implementing anything in that report. After that, the opposition gives up. The person who has written the report goes home with his well-earned salary and the public of Ontario is short the $50,000, $100,000, or $1 million spent to get the report.
I think it is important that we look at some of the comments of Mr. Pukacz with respect to police services in the province. He talks about "a very substantial inequity in the apportionment of the per capita grant on policing between regional municipalities with regional police forces and those municipalities whose municipal departments do not form part of regional police departments."
He says that exists and goes on to say:
"Inequities in the application of this grant become more obvious if we take into consideration the fact that most of the regional police departments are responsible for a mixed urban and rural policing, where the latter is much less expensive and requires fewer resources than the policing of the above-mentioned cities which, with minor exceptions, are responsible for policing dense urban populations."
Furthermore, he says, "The provincial financing of municipal police services by the present system of unconditional grants implies that the population of regional municipalities with a regional police force requires more police protection than that of cities, towns, townships or villages with their own police departments."
Just to digress from that for a moment, it seems to me this government underscores that feeling. As I indicated earlier, if one is in a region, one needs more money than if one is not in a region. Since increased grants came in simultaneously with regional government, one would think the government would hold off on this increase until there were regions right across the province. One can only suspect that is the case, because they do not try to equalize for nonregional areas.
Mr. Pukacz goes on to say, "This system of financial support to policing deprives the Solicitor General, who is ultimately responsible for the development, operations and control of law enforcement in the province from the equitable apportionment of financial resources according to the factual requirements of policing in various regions of the province."
He further recommends, "The existing inequities in the financing of municipal policing can only be rectified by three things: removing provincial financing of all policing in Ontario from the system of municipal unconditional grants; transferring budgetary funds for this purpose from the direct control of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics or the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and its successor, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to the Ministry of the Solicitor General, directly responsible for law enforcement in Ontario" -- and if the Solicitor General were here today, I am sure he would agree with me on that -- "and directing the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in conjunction with the Ontario Police Commission, to develop comprehensive standards for municipal policing by regional and local police departments and the Ontario Provincial Police, including criteria governing provincial financing of these operations."
Those are some of the feelings supported by my colleagues in this House, by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and by a well-known and respected consultant in police financing in this province, Mr. Pukacz.
I hope the provincial government will take seriously the plight of the various municipalities in this province that are not regionalized and have to suffer the plight of receiving only $12 per capita as opposed to those regional governments that have the support of the province and receive $17 per capita.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. I will begin by saying that we will oppose it fundamentally because to accept it is to accept the way in which this government funds municipalities.
If we want to start right at the beginning, the first ground for opposition would be to look at the title of the act, which says we are supposedly talking about Ontario unconditional grants. I remember when that concept was first put forward, municipalities were saying it would be nice to have a base provided by Ontario that would be unconditional. In addition to the municipal property tax, they would be allotted sums of money that would not have strings attached; it would be a supplement to the municipal tax base.
Let me just read a brief sentence or two from the explanatory notes: "Consequent on the above, regional municipalities except Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and Muskoka are to credit the grants they receive to their general funds. The three named regional municipalities may continue to credit their constituent area municipalities with general and police per capita grants received by the region, in accordance with the population of those area municipalities."
For something that is purportedly unconditional, it strikes me there are a hell of a lot of conditions put on this. I think that is one of our basic problems. It goes back for a lengthy period of time, and the response from this government is a rather traditional one. Whenever somebody asks for something, it generally tries to find a way to give it in name only and then do what it really wants.
In this instance, when municipalities were asking for unconditional grants, the response from the government was, "If you want unconditional grants, we will give you unconditional grants; here are the conditions under which we will give you the unconditional grants." This technique has been perfected in the private market by General Motors under a much simpler title; it calls it "mandatory options." A person does not have to take those options, but he cannot get the car without them.
9 p.m.
Ontario reiterates that same technique. In olden times this was called the pea in the pod game. The people on the street would walk up to the little guy who had three little pods there and try to guess which one the pea was under. One could never win. One could play the game but always lost. In olden times they used to say that was a crime -- they really should not be carrying on that kind of fraudulent activity. Yet I have some difficulty recognizing how the hell an unconditional grants act can have so many conditions attached to it.
One of the problems the people in Ontario have had is that this government, for some lengthy period of time, has kept on giving what was asked for in name only. After they have done that then they do it to us several ways -- sideways.
This bill is an excellent example of that. In principle, it moves to take away some of the inequity particularly in the field of costing to municipalities for police services. That does not sound like a bad idea. It sounds like a reasonable way to proceed. Never mind that this is a conditional unconditional grant. To get a little more money sounds like not a bad idea, and so many of my friends in municipal politics would say, "Well, at least some of the inequities are gone." Maybe a couple of weeks ago they might have said, "Well, it is conditional but we will take it. It is the best offer we are going to get anyway, so we might just as well."
I wonder how they feel today after they have had a chance to run through their municipal costs this year after our friendly little Treasurer in plaid got through with them. Is there a reflection in here for the additional costs to each of the municipalities the Treasurer put on them a couple of weeks ago in his budget? No, there is not.
Part of the reason for unconditional grants in the first place was to give municipalities a base over and above the property tax base -- a little flexibility, a little manoeuvring room. Once again they give with one hand and take away with the other. When these people are through with the municipalities I would warrant there will be a third hand entering the picture. It has been my experience in dealing with the government that they promise a little bit, and the municipalities say, "If that is the best I can get I will take that." One knows it is insufficient; it is not enough. I dare say anyone who looks at the kind of grant changes that are being addressed in this bill will say, "It is nice but it is not really enough." That is the basis of the first argument.
Second, after they have done that, they will increase the costs somewhere else. In this instance, that is exactly what the Treasurer did. He slapped that old sales tax on vehicles they will buy for police forces. Many of the smaller forces will not have a capacity to service those vehicles in-house. They are going to get hit again, and they will get hit nine ways from Sunday before they are through. The beauty of it all is that at some point somebody over there will have the gall to arrive with the cheque.
The cheque always comes. One does not know right now exactly what the cheque will be for, and one does not know under what faint guise the cheque will be presented, but what one does know -- and each and every person out there in municipal politics knows it now -- is when the screams arise, when the revolution begins, somebody from the Big Blue Machine will be there with the ribbon, and the photographer, and the cheque.
Mr. Wrye: About election time.
Mr. Breaugh: It may not be election time. It may be this fall just before some local Progressive Conservative, prominent in municipal politics, is running into a little trouble and needs a little sweetener for his electorate. It may just be that somebody across there will roll up in the limousine and out will pop two or three staffers. They will see the photographers are well stationed and that the local press has been notified the minister is arriving. The Minister of Municipal Affairs did not see fit to make it here tonight for this little debate, but I dare say when the cheques are going out he will be there. Off will go the limousine and out will fall the minister and in front of him will be the little cheque.
We are beginning, certainly on this side and in municipal politics, to understand how the boys in blue, so to speak, have kept themselves in business for so long. They have no qualms at all about putting all these conditions on an unconditional grant. They have no trouble with that at all.
The Treasurer of Ontario cries foul when the federal government does not tell them about a change in the rules. He says, "Listen, there ought to be consultation on this stuff. Whenever you change those established programs financing grants you better sit down with the provinces and bargain. You better negotiate a consensus. You better come to a table, discuss our common problems, and arrive at a resolution. And don't you dare go out there and establish major changes in a funding formula without my okay."
I wonder if we did that with the municipalities on this. This is the interesting little twist of the knife here. They said: "Talk to some of the municipal organizations. Yes, there is a mood to take it to conventions, to take it to the meetings of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, to pound out a little consensus behind closed doors."
I wonder what would happen if the federal government said: "Okay, we'll talk to you, kiddies, but only behind closed doors. And by the end of it all you'd better be onside, or there won't be any money." That is the process we are dealing with here. Will the numbers match up to the needs? I think the consensus on that is pretty easy: No, it will not. It will not address the cost of policing.
As a matter of fact, if I were a consultant advising municipalities on what is the best kind of police grant to get, the best kind is no grant. The best kind in Ontario is to have the Ontario Provincial Police provide police services. Do not be dumb enough to try to set up a regional force.
You can see, as you work through these grant structures, that the province likes to have regional police forces. For some reason it is very trendy and fashionable these days. Regional police forces around Ontario are all trying to provide good police services and they are having some difficulty with it. The traditional pattern will prevail.
Another sweet irony in this bill is that just after most of our municipalities have set their budget we will start talking about the legislation upon which their financial arrangements with the province will be set. Someone will say that the minister was down to one of their conferences or that he made his announcement or made it known what the grant patterns would be. It is strange that he can find the time to do that but cannot find the time to be here.
It is interesting to watch the trends. In each of my years as critic for the Solicitor General it was always interesting to follow as regional police forces went through their budgetary process. Each year they found that the budget provided by the province in their municipality was insufficient to meet the need. And between the local police chief and his staff's submissions to the police commission and the police commission's going to the regional council, there always seemed to be a crime wave that whipped through Ontario.
I do not know why that is but I noticed that each year, as the police budget was up for discussion, things seemed to deteriorate badly in places which were as safe as a church in October, November and December. The chief of police would be there at the Lions' and the Kinsmen's Clubs assuring the citizenry: "There is no crime here. Everything is under control. There is no organized crime." But come the budget, when these conditional grants would kick in, all of a sudden there seemed to be a little crime spurt. I do not know whether there really is a kind of January-February crime wave, but it always seemed to happen.
There, I think, you see an example of police forces responding to the way this government funds things, if they cannot create a serious problem out there, or at least impress upon the regional councils that there is a need for an expansion of services. They understand quite well how this government, in particular, functions: If there is not to be crime on the streets tomorrow morning, they are not about to put any more bucks out there. They understand the process, and so do people, I think, in municipalities.
I want to close with a couple of comments on whether we have really resolved the problem of differences in funding the various levels for regional forces and for local forces -- never mind the OPP; set that aside. I do not believe that we have resolved those difficulties but only in some small measure.
I suppose, given the glacial speed at which this government works, we should all be grateful for the crumbs which are spread around, but I for one am prepared to say I am not. I do not think that is the proper way to finance any kind of municipal service, let alone police services.
I believe this government has got away with this approach for too long. It has been allowed to set its own rules, to close the doors and negotiate with municipal officials where no one else can watch. And it has also been allowed to change the rules of the game after they have been set. I think that is unfair to the municipalities. I recognize they are always in a mendicant position with this government, always begging, and it has always been fascinating to watch that process at work.
9:10 p.m.
First, the minister announces what is going to be the system of funding. He does it every year. He has never responded to the long-term commitment the municipalities are constantly seeking, despite the fact he sees no conflict at all in turning around and saying to the federal government: "Hey, we cannot budget year by year. We have to know two, three, five, 10 years in advance what the financial flow will be."
There has never been a response to the municipalities which says, "That argument applies to you as well and to be fair we are giving you a reasonable and accurate long-term projection of how we are going to help you address your costs." That does not happen.
More than that, after the announcement is made, after this bill is read, that supposedly is the end of the process because the same rules logically should apply to everybody. If one has been in municipal politics in Ontario one knows that is not true. There is a printed agenda and then there is a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda means that if the regional chairman is worth his salt and there are problems with this kind of unconditional grant, he had better be down here. He had better go over to La Scala, down to Winston's, and around the government buildings here.
He had better gather up the local members to have a little chit-chat with the various ministers who are here to see what ways they can weasel around that. What kind of unconditional grants can they get then? What kind of perversion can be worked on it? Of course, if there is a little trouble, it will help if the local police chief will co-operate by identifying some local riot that is about to happen. Then they can get a few of the citizens out there to come down with him. After that, it is plea bargaining in this system.
That is what is wrong with the system and that is specifically what is wrong with this bill. That is why it does not deserve the support of any of the members here. There ought to be a little more consideration on the part of the government. I sense that in the long run it is doing itself a great disservice.
Maybe this little shell game that has worked for years in Ontario was worthwhile when it was first put out. After all, people who are victims of fraud often are reluctant to admit they were suckered in that initial process. People who have discovered they have been taken, that a fraudulent activity has occurred, are not exactly the people who are going to come back and be friends again next year. I suggest that on the next trip through here with unconditional grants the government do something absolutely phenomenal. It should try putting forward a bill proposing unconditional grants which has no conditions. It might be another 40 years before we see that.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act. I hesitate to repeat comments I have made in this House for well over 10 years in respect of my own community, the city of Windsor. The minister has been in this House long enough to be aware and to understand the problems my community has been having for many years as a result of not getting its fair share of the grants, both unconditional and police grants.
In reference to the police grants, the minister knows that every single town bordering the large metropolitan areas in the United States has problems that are not commonplace to municipalities in the interior of the province. We have an element that comes into Windsor, across the river from the Detroit area, from the state of Michigan and from areas beyond that, which can at times mean additional responsibilities and problems for the municipal police.
Yet this government, in the many years it has been in office, has hesitated to come along and recognize the added policing that is required in my community; has failed to recognize it in the provision of proper funding so the police force can do the job it would like to do. Instead, it does the best it can with the limited resources.
It is about time this government was fair to the community. I hope I do not have to repeat this in years ahead, but the minister is not being fair. He is discriminating against the community simply because it does not have a regional government. The minister knows we have these added costs and responsibilities, yet the government has failed to fulfil its responsibilities.
Quite a few years ago in the city of London, the mayor of Windsor, Frank Wansbrough, made a presentation to the cabinet. He pointed out part of what I was saying and a lot more. He was very graciously met by the cabinet. The members listened attentively but hesitated to act. We had a petition drawn up in the city and more than 2,000 names were presented to the government. I can recall them placed in boxes at the end of the long table in this Legislature, the names of 20,000 citizens strongly objecting to the way they had been treated by this government. Yet absolutely nothing was done to alleviate the problem.
I cannot understand why a government would continually play politics when it comes to the protection of citizenry in the community from which I come, the city of Windsor. It is absolutely unacceptable to have such treatment by a government that has perpetuated itself in office for well over 38 years. Surely it understands fairness. Surely it realizes that simply because an area is represented by an opposition member it shows that the people in the area have a little common sense and wish to have someone rather than a government individual speak for them. Unless this government pays a little more attention to a community such as mine it is never going to have a member elected from that party. As long as it does not, when we form the government we will treat all communities in a fair and just fashion.
I have only mentioned police grants and the discrimination there. There are the unconditional grants in addition to that. If someone is owed money they expect to be paid back at some time or other. Over the last eight years or so this government has short-changed the community to the extent of well over $40 million. That is an accumulated total. We hope our talk in this House will fall on open ears; however, the government hesitates to right a wrong.
If one owes the bank money, one can bet one's bottom dollar the bank will come after it. The government owes the community money by shortchanging it, by not being fair with it. It makes no attempt to right that wrong and give the community its fair share, nor to make some arrangement to pay up moneys owing to that community because it has not been given its fair share of unconditional grants. I could continue to talk on that subject. The minister has heard my comments in other years. Why does he not initiate something to convince his colleagues that is not the way to treat a community? To be fair, all communities should be treated in the same way.
Why should London have substantially higher grants than the community I come from? A former premier came from the city of London and, as a result, London was given added consideration. But that is not the way to run things. Give to a community what it is entitled to receive. Do not play politics with the lives of the people. Our community almost had a taxpayers' revolt in the city this year, and what happened in Windsor this year is going to happen in other communities until the government realizes that they have got to treat all municipalities fairly.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: These are very important arguments the member for Windsor-Walkerville is making, and I think it is a little insulting to have six government members in the House. I do not see a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens) ordered the bells to be rung.
9:25 p.m.
The Acting Speaker: We have a quorum. The member for Windsor-Walkerville may continue.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, before the quorum bells were rung I had been pleading with the government to reconsider its treatment of my community, and I know there are other communities in Ontario that are also being treated unjustly.
We have a problem in the Windsor area that is unique to Ontario. Because we are an automotive town we have probably the heaviest unemployment we have had in years; it was probably only during the days of the Depression that it may have been worse. Yet no consideration has ever been given by this government to municipalities that happen to have such heavy unemployment. The government could at least use that as one of the criteria, if necessary, for unconditional grants. I know it may not be in there, but when you have a community with approximately 20,000 unemployed at one time you have to consider it as a possibility.
The figures are not as dramatic now as they were before, essentially because a lot of the people from the Essex county area, approximately 15,000 people, have departed and taken up residence in the western provinces. That is the equivalent of the whole town of Leamington leaving the Essex county area. People do not leave a community if economic conditions are good. Economic conditions were not as good as they could have been, yet the government has some responsibility to those many people. It could even have considered the numbers of unemployed as one of the criteria for raising an unconditional grant.
The minister will say we will get added financial assistance for welfare, but the community is also stuck with heavy welfare payments. Yet there has been no real consideration on the part of this government, especially on the two types of grants I have mentioned: the unconditional grant and the police grant. The Treasurer did not hesitate to impose added burdens on the municipality with his budget, but there was no provision to assist that municipality in overcoming those additional costs. With the municipality facing heavy unemployment, one of the conditions could have been the unemployment index in that community. He could have considered that in an attempt to increase the grants and help a community weather the adverse economic conditions.
There is also a problem with the education grants. The number of younger folk continuing in the schools is smaller simply because the birth rate in some communities has generally decreased. As a result there is a need for funding. A municipality can only raise a certain amount through property taxes before the residents almost rise up in arms. As I mentioned earlier, there would have been a taxpayers' revolt in the city of Windsor had the city fathers not dramatically reduced their budget from approximately a 15 or 18 per cent increase over last year to only a seven, eight or nine per cent increase.
The citizens find it almost impossible to meet the tax burden, and this tax burden is so heavy for at least two reasons: this government's failure to provide additional funds through the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act; and its failure to treat all municipalities fairly, even if they are not regional governments. Governments bordering on American municipalities do have problems, maybe, in some instances, more serious problems than do the areas under regional government at present in the province.
I hope with the few comments I have made that I have been able to penetrate the wax in some ears so that government will once and for all treat all municipalities in the province fairly. Let us forget about this friends idea. Let us come along and give to a municipality what it is entitled to receive, and let us not discriminate.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill 28 with some disappointment. I had hoped we might hear from some of the members across the way from rural municipalities.
As one of the other speakers indicated, whenever this bill comes up for debate in the House, if the grants are changed the members on this side of the House always raise concerns about the lack of support from the provincial government and especially the differential which continues to exist in police grants and in funding for policing.
I have asked this question many times and have yet to receive anything like an adequate response: why is there a differential in the policing grants between a municipality which is not part of a regional municipality and a regional municipality? I have never received any kind of explanation for that.
It has been said in the past that originally when the regions were being organized it was justified as a way of persuading municipal politicians they would get some extra assistance by going into a region.
I would not argue with that on the basis that at the time of the organization of the regional municipalities there might have been some extra expenses for restructuring the policing of some of those regions and that there might have been extra costs for equipment and radio facilities and whatever. The regional municipalities have long since got over the adjustments required, yet we still have the ongoing differential.
I ask again: why is there a differential? What justification is there for it? I am very disappointed that some of the rural members across the way have not risen and said the same thing to the ministry: why is there a differential? What justification is there for it?
Perhaps if we ever get some back-benchers on the other side who have enough gumption to get up and express the concerns of the municipalities in their own ridings, we might be able to persuade some of the people on the front bench on the other side there is really a problem and it is not a partisan issue. This is anything but a partisan issue. How can anyone believe that policing is a partisan issue?
Mr. Rotenberg: Do not make it one.
Mr. Wildman: The parliamentary assistant says, "Do not make it one."
Mr. Gordon: I've heard it made a partisan issue.
Mr. Wildman: I suppose one might argue that it is partisan because people of another party raise the issue. That is really small-minded, if that is the way one looks at it.
Mr. Gordon: No, no; you've got to have a broader mind than that.
Mr. Wildman: I suppose it is partisan if the people who are concerned and happen to belong to other parties wish to raise an issue.
Mr. Breaugh: Or all three parties, as the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has.
Mr. Wildman: I know that my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) in the past has raised many concerns about policing. I do not believe he sees it as a partisan issue, and I do not either. But if it is not partisan, if it is an issue of concern to all the municipalities and to the citizens of those municipalities across the province, why do we not hear somebody from the other side expressing those concerns? Why is it only people from this side of the House?
I have searched for the reason. I have looked at some of the regions in southern Ontario and I have asked: "Are their areas much larger? Do they have many more miles to patrol than the small rural municipalities in northern Ontario, for instance?" The answer is no.
I suppose it might be argued that in the regional municipalities of southern Ontario there are more people to police. I cannot argue with that. It is true in most cases. They do have more people to police, but they also do not have a lot of the extra expenses that some of the small municipalities in northern Ontario have. One reason they have extra costs for policing is simply because the Ontario Provincial Police are so underfunded by this government that they are not able to provide adequate policing on their own, and so the municipalities have had to take up the slack.
I will use the community of Wawa in my riding as an example. It has its own regional police force, its own local police force, the Michipicoten township police. When one looks at that example one really wonders why policing grants are determined on a per capita basis at all.
The township of Michipicoten has approximately 5,000 people. It is not a very big place, yet that is the only police force that operates on a 24-hour-a-day basis between Sault Ste. Marie and Nipigon. It is the only police force that has a lockup to hold prisoners overnight and they then have to be transferred to the Sault Ste. Marie-Algoma district jail. Wawa is approximately 140 miles --
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member is speaking to Bill 28.
Mr. Wildman: I am talking about policing grants. I thought that was obvious, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying Wawa is 140 miles from Sault Ste. Marie. The Michipicoten township police have to send officers to --
Mr. Bradley: The Tories do not care about Wawa.
Mr. Wildman: Now that the Speaker has returned to the chair, I am sure he will fully understand that I am talking about the costs of policing in small municipalities.
Because of the distance, that police force often has to send officers to accompany prisoners on transfers to the Algoma district jail in Sault Ste. Marie. As a result, in order to maintain policing in their own community, they have to have extra officers. They have a much larger force for the size of the community than most southern Ontario communities of a comparable size that do their own policing. I am suggesting that distance and geographic location should be taken into account in determining grants.
The Wawa area has an OPP detachment as well. One might ask, "Why do we need higher grants for the Michipicoten township police when there is an OPP detachment there as well that carries out policing of highway traffic and investigation of crimes that take place just outside the municipality, and so on?" As I have said, very few of the detachments north of Sault Ste. Marie stay open all night. The Wawa detachment of the OPP closes at midnight or one o'clock in the morning. Sure, there is a radio dispatcher on duty, and if there is an emergency call for the police that dispatcher then has to rouse some off-duty policeman to go and answer the call.
9:40 p.m.
The Michipicoten township police provide policing for their community on a 24-hour basis, yet they get paid less per capita than a regional force; and we have yet to find out why, when they have extra expenses as a result of their geographic location and the distance to the nearest jail. The local municipal officials have come to the ministry and asked, "Why is it we cannot get higher grants?" Officials down here seem stupefied. They seem to be completely unable to comprehend the problems facing this kind of municipality in this kind of geographic location.
When the reeve of the township of Michipicoten tells people how many police officers are on their force for the size of the population -- I believe it is somewhere around 11 -- they just look at him and say: "Why do you have such a large force? That's ridiculous." Yet they are unable to understand that those police officers are often in transit between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie, transporting prisoners or going to court dates at the district courthouse in Sault Ste. Marie.
Every session when this bill comes up we raise the same arguments and we are faced by an opposing side in the House that sits and says, "Well, we have had those differential grants in the past and we are going to maintain them."
When the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) was speaking to the bill he said it would pay small municipalities to have their policing done by the OPP at no direct cost to them rather than have their own forces. There is no question about that. For instance, compare Wawa with the second largest community in my riding, Blind River. Blind River does not have its own police force; it has an OPP detachment that is responsible for policing the municipality as well as the highways and the area in the vicinity of Blind River.
The community of Wawa is taking some of the pressure off the OPP by providing its own policing, yet this government refuses to recognize this fact by giving them adequate financing. Perhaps it would pay the township of Michipicoten to say, "We are not going to carry on policing any more; we are going to have the OPP do it for us." That would cost the provincial government more than it is costing now.
It is a ridiculous position for the provincial government to take. Why do they not encourage small municipalities to carry out their own policing by providing adequate funding? That would take some of the pressure off the OPP, which is understaffed and underfunded. Instead of giving townships like Wawa and Michipicoten an incentive not to police their own communities, why are they not providing an incentive for local policing to take some pressure off the provincial force? I hope I will be able to get some explanation of why the differential has not been eliminated.
Today in the House during question period I raised a question about policing in Dubreuilville, which is a community about 50 miles from Wawa. The Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) obviously did not know where Dubreuilville was when I raised the question, but he had had some briefing. He knew the Wawa OPP detachment was being increased by four members because of the elimination of the detachment in Dubreuilville. He also knew the OPP is in the process of setting up a new radio system, which will make it possible for all OPP detachments in the Algoma district to be dispatched from Sault Ste. Marie under a centralized radio dispatching system. Unfortunately, he did not know the community I was talking about is a francophone community and none of the radio dispatchers are bilingual.
He also did not know that Dubreuilville is over 50 miles of terrible roads from Wawa. It is my view that the OPP is not now providing adequate policing for the Michipicoten area and it is ridiculous, even with additional staff, to be adding to its responsibility. In my view, instead of doing that, the government should provide the additional financing necessary to help the township of Michipicoten provide better policing. Then the OPP would have less responsibility in that area and would be able to police the smaller communities in the area around it.
I hope that sometime during this debate we hear from the rural members and the northern members on the other side of this House, and that they might get up and finally support the position that has been put forward again and again on this side of the House. We have to eliminate the differential. It is no longer reasonable to maintain the differential. We have to provide adequate financing to enable small municipalities to provide local policing, so that we can get something approaching the security the citizens of this province deserve.
I will not speak at any greater length. I will just say I cannot support this piece of legislation, because I believe the financing is inadequate. I do not accept the differential. I do not believe it should continue. I will sit down now in the hope that someone from the other side of the House will have the guts to get up and explain to the front bench the need for adequate policing and financing of the small communities in northern Ontario and rural municipalities across this province.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I will say I would be pleased to yield to the member for Cochrane North, who I am sure is just itching to provide a northern perspective from the government's point of view.
I want to say a few words on this matter. I note, and I am sure the parliamentary assistant notes, that once again the Windsor members are most interested in Bill 28. Our interest is mainly due to the fact that over the years, the city of Windsor has been so badly short-changed by this government that we are now in a financial crisis that has spawned perhaps the worst taxpayers' revolt in the province.
While the Speaker was out of the chair, I was forced to call for a quorum. I did so in the full knowledge that there were a total of six members of the government party in the House. Those of us on this side of the House get more than a little sick and tired of being told that we are supposed to play the game entirely by the government's rules and that it is not necessary for them to come to this chamber and defend their actions.
I acknowledge that my friend the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) was one of the six.
Mr. Speaker: Now to the bill, please.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that there is not a single cabinet minister in the House either.
Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) makes an excellent point. It is perhaps a symbol of the contempt this Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) --
Mr. Speaker: And now to the bill, please.
Mr. Wrye: I am speaking to this bill, Mr. Speaker, with respect. It is a symbol of the contempt with which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing treats this Legislature and the municipalities that he has --
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to ask the member for Windsor-Sandwich to confine his remarks to the bill, please.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, let me simply say it is unfortunate that the minister could not find the time to join us tonight to talk about and defend his actions. However, let me talk a little bit about the bill and the reason these grants are inadequate.
The increase of 10.5 per cent in these grants was barely going to be enough to bail the municipalities out of a growing crisis -- and my friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) spoke about the need perhaps to come up with a new formula -- especially municipalities such as my own, St. Catharines, Brantford, Oshawa, Chatham and perhaps even Sudbury; it was barely going to be enough to bail them out of the increasing problems they have as they are hit increasingly hard by unemployment.
Yet having given up the money a few months ago -- and my friend the member for Waterloo North alluded to this -- the government then, with no consultation at all, turned around and in the budget of May 13, took one to 1.5 per cent away from every municipality; giving with one hand while picking their pockets with the other.
An hon. member: Shame.
Mr. Wrye: It is really shameful. The previous speaker, my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), spoke about the police grants --
Mr. Brandt: The feds would never do that.
Mr. Bradley: Run for the federal Parliament if you are dissatisfied.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brandt: You also know it is Canada too.
Mr. Riddell: If you want to talk about the feds, you run for the feds the next time around.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: If the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) wants to talk, I will recognize him. The member for Windsor-Sandwich has the floor.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to yield to the member for Sarnia if just once I could hear from this government something about Ontario and not always about the federal government.
Mr. Speaker: And now to the bill.
Mr. Breaugh: I move that the member for Sarnia --
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: I am being provoked. Mr. Speaker.
I join my friend the member for Algoma and the other speakers in asking the parliamentary assistant once again whether in his closing remarks he would be so kind as to tell us why we have a $5 differential in police grants.
Let me describe the situation that confronts us in the community of Windsor. We are a border community.
I see that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has just arrived, and he will be well aware --
Mr. Bradley: That's only the Solicitor General when Roy isn't here on a high-profile issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for St. Catharines wants to speak, he will have his turn.
Mr. Wrye: And he will want to speak.
Mr. Speaker: In the meantime, we are listening to the member for Windsor-Sandwich.
Mr. Wrye: I will go back to describing the community in which I live. We are a border community, and we face the same kinds of problems that border communities face throughout Ontario. In addition, in spite of the fact that we are not a regional municipality, several services that are offered to municipalities surrounding Windsor are paid for entirely, and the personnel demand and the equipment for those services are paid for entirely, out of the budget of the city of Windsor. Yet there is absolutely not one dollar's worth of recognition, I say to the parliamentary assistant.
In addition, I point out to the House that when we were in this place about one year ago at this time we were debating a similar bill, which, believe it or not, contained similar grants for police: $12 and $17. Where is the recognition that the costs of police protection are rising very rapidly? Indeed, in my municipality, and I believe in every municipality in Ontario, the costs of police protection are probably the second largest individual expenditure we face.
Where are the municipalities supposed to get the money? To whom are they to reach out? Are they to reach out to those businesses that have closed and left? Are they to reach out to those taxpayers who are already paying 10 per cent on their municipal taxes, who have been asked by this government to pay a whole series of increases in this budget, tax on everything from shrubs and flowers to meals at McDonald's and everything in between? Are they supposed to reach out to them and tap their pockets?
This government makes a great deal of the fact that there should be discussions with the federal government in terms of established program financing after it has welshed on its commitment for more than five years. It makes a big deal of those facts. Where were the discussions with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario? Were there any discussions? Did they know about this kind of money grab that was going to go on? Indeed, where were the discussions before these unconditional grants were given out? Where was the meaningful discussion?
It has been made clear by the member for Waterloo North that the association simply believes there is a totally inadequate amount of new funding provided this year to meet the needs of the municipalities.
I know a number of members on this side wish to speak, so I do not wish to continue the debate any longer. I, for one, am very displeased with this bill and I do not intend to support it on second reading.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant who is floating this bill through on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing knows that I represent a rural riding. We have heard a lot of comment today about rural members getting up to speak, and I am one who fully intends to express the concerns of the rural municipalities.
I represent a rural riding consisting of towns ranging in population from 1,000 to 8,000. Goderich is the largest town in my riding, and it has a population of 8,000. When I look at the grant structure to an area such as this, I have to believe that we are not getting our fair share.
Exeter is an example of a town that is receiving these unconditional grants. Exeter received $361,998 in grants in 1981, an increase of $13,116 over 1980. This amounted to an increase of 3.76 per cent.
Of the four categories of grants that make up the total grant structure provided by the province, two categories, the general support grant and the per capita grants for policing, made increased revenues available to the town. Those two categories of provincial grants made increased revenues available to the town.
I am not going to elaborate any further on the inequity in the police grants. There has been quite a bit said about that tonight.
I firmly believe that the reason for the $5 differential is that it is the backdoor method of this government to impose further regional government. I have always said that it is almost tantamount to a form of blackmail whereby they are keeping these areas that are unregionalized to the $12 per capita and providing $17 per capita in the regionalized areas. That tells me one thing, that the government is still on the road to regionalizing all those areas in Ontario that have not come under regional government and that this is one method that they have of doing it. That is all I am going to say for now on the police grants.
The general support grant is to provide an amount of money equal to six per cent of the previous year's net general dollar levy. The police per capita grant is based, as I have already indicated, on $12 per capita for a population of 3,668 in the town of Exeter. The one category known as the general per capita grant remained at the same level, seven times Exeter's population.
The resource equalization grant is the area --
Mr. Rotenberg: This year it is up to 11.
Mr. Riddell: I am sorry, I do not have this year's figures. I wish I did have.
Mr. Rotenberg: They are in the bill.
Mr. Riddell: Okay.
Mr. Rotenberg: It went from seven to 11. They got a good increase.
Mr. Riddell: All right. A lot of my facts are based on 1981. There might have been a slight change, but the point I am trying to make is that I really think the rural areas are being treated unfairly regardless of whatever steps have been taken to provide increases this year.
10 p.m.
The resource equalization grant is the area where the bulk of the town's grant moneys is obtained. The mathematical calculation in this area is complex and takes into consideration residential and farm assessment in relation to industrial and commercial properties. Only 55 per cent of residential and farm assessment is retained in the resource equalization grant formula to reflect the fact that municipalities tax residential and farm properties at a lower proportion of value than is the case with industrial and commercial properties. In other words, total local taxable assessment of a municipality is reduced by discounting residential and farm assessment by 45 per cent to reflect current tax practices.
Using this methodology, and standard compensating factors with plus or minus limits, a grant is struck for the community. After saying all this, the resources equalization grant to Exeter was reduced $160 for 1981. At the Ontario Good Roads Association convention -- where has the parliamentary assistant gone? I hope he is listening to this, because I really think something has to be done.
Mr. Bradley: He has gone to get his marching orders.
Mr. Riddell: I am quite prepared to wait until he comes back, because what I am saying reflects the concerns of all rural communities throughout Ontario.
We certainly hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) is making a speedy recovery from his operation. At the Ontario Good Roads Association convention he stated: "As for transfers from my own ministry" -- the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs -- "I announced that the unconditional grants for 1981 would increase to about $582 million. This represents a substantial increase of more than $50 million or 9.2 per cent over 1980. The major initiative for 1981 involved the increase in police per capita grant that I have already mentioned, and the reformulation of the resource equalization grant and a new method of apportioning municipally shared costs."
Again I mention that Exeter's increase for 1981 amounted to 3.76 per cent and Goderich's increase was in the neighbourhood of four per cent, substantially below the provincial average increase of 9.2 per cent. Some of the towns' lack of gain was through a zero increase in population. Where per capita grants are allocated, increases or decreases will develop depending on population shifts. Therefore, we must always be alert to provide a climate in our rural towns that stimulates growth.
The other area of resource equalization grants makes me fearful of future grants that may be provided in this area. The formulation can be detrimental to our towns and it is imperative that the town councils understand fully its potential impact. I strongly hold to the belief that towns in rural Ontario are not achieving their fair share of the increase in unconditional grants.
Previously I indicated that Exeter and Goderich are receiving less than a four per cent increase in grants, whereas the average provincial increase amounted to 9.2 per cent in 1981. Certainly costs are accelerating in the towns at a far greater rate than four per cent, and only through cushions built in the previous budget were the towns able to hold taxation for municipal purposes below two per cent.
Recognizing the difficulties that the citizens of these towns are facing at present, it is the desire of the town councils to help in whatever way they can. However, what has been done this year cannot be repeated next year, unless the towns get a more equitable share of the provincial grants. If the province remains rigid in its stand on the method of calculating these grants, then I foresee communities such as Lucan, Exeter, Seaforth, Clinton and Goderich deteriorating in services and quality of life. Surely this is not the desire of the provincial government.
I would like to extend a scenario that could happen in these small towns. If the increases in grants to a municipalities of 4,000 people are not equal percentage-wise to other communities, then the need for increasing the mill rate will be great. To meet required expenditures on services, money is required. The alternative is to cut services and hold the mill rate. If the towns increase their taxation above other communities, they lose the opportunity to attract or hold industry; and this could stagnate growth or decrease the size of the community. Property values and individual assets will deteriorate and the town will begin to decline. Businessmen will relocate or curtail their business. Protection to people will deteriorate, and we will end up with very unstable communities.
Perhaps this scenario is extreme and, at best, would not happen for many years. However, to be forced on to a course of this nature is unbecoming to the province's desire for equality for all. It is for this reason that I am drawing my concern to the attention of the parliamentary assistant as we are debating this bill, and I hope we may rectify this situation for future grant allocations. I certainly solicit the parliamentary assistant's support in trying to rationalize the situation I have just described.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments on Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Conditional Grants Act.
Last Saturday, a week ago, my colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and a number of the local MPPs, including the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), attended a joint meeting of regional council, along with our federal counterparts. The agenda set up for that meeting was interesting.
One of the major concerns was that the grants that are now made available to regional Niagara might not be sufficient for the regional government to continue as a viable government community. I thought the parliamentary assistant should be aware that at present there are difficulties within the regional government of Niagara. If he wants regional government to survive, this government is going to have to come through with much more in the way of unconditional grants than has been suggested in Bill 28.
The bill is going to raise the grant from $10 to $11. That is almost a 10 per cent increase in per capita grants to municipalities. On that black day just recently, May 13, we had this government tapping the local municipalities across Ontario -- school boards, libraries, everything -- with an additional seven per cent sales tax. It shows the gall of this parliamentary assistant, saying through this bill, "We are only going to give a $1 increase," when that will not even cover what he is going to take back from the municipalities in additional retail sales taxes.
I have talked to some of the municipalities and townships in my area. It will mean rate increases of two to three mills in local municipalities such as the township of Wainfleet. Those in Port Colborne and Fort Erie will be much higher, and I imagine all 12 municipalities within the regional municipality of Niagara will have substantial increases they will have to pick up some place.
10:10 p.m.
That some place is going to hit the taxpayers, not so much this year but next year. They will feel the crunch of the new provincial budget with the seven per cent retail sales tax applied on all municipal purchases for equipment, repairing roads, libraries, schools or whatever it may be.
It will perhaps hit the regional police force of Niagara the highest because I think one of the highest expenditures of regional government is police costs. I can see that even the $17 the government is going to allow as a per capita grant to maintain the regional police force is not going to be sufficient. I do not think the government can give such a measly amount, a dollar here or a dollar there, thinking it is going to cover the tremendous increase in sales tax.
I bring that to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. Even the members on that side of the House should be opposing this bill because it is not sufficient to assist the local municipalities. What the government is doing by giving what little it has here, and having the sales tax included, means that next year there is going to be a substantial increase in municipal taxes.
There are municipalities in my area where people are almost ready to scream that taxes are going to be too high provincially and too high federally.
If the government wants to continue to put a damper on the economy of this province it can keep hitting the municipalities with taxes and it is going to go down. That is what the government is driving at; everything is going down.
I do not blame the fellows working in Inco who are demanding more from the industry. Perhaps it is hopeless because they are demanding so much, but they are trying to tell the politicians that if the government keeps increasing taxes they are going to be demanding more from their employer. Where will the employer get it from? It is going to raise the price of almost everything to the consumer. The question is, where does it end?
If this government does not sharpen up the public is going to be sharpening things up. The government is not living in the real world of today. I suggest the members sitting on the other side of the House should be out there talking to people. The people will give them the message that they are up to here in taxes.
I suggest to the parliamentary assistant he is going to have to come up with a better deal than this to assist the municipalities because there is not enough there to continue making them viable local governments. The dollar increase in per capita grants is not sufficient.
I concur with my colleagues that the grants for policing in Ontario should be uniform. My colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) mentioned a study made by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I think one of the recommendations was that there should be some uniformity in police grants. There should be some consideration given to amalgamating all the police forces in Ontario in one provincial police department under the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Perhaps the government should be looking at that. Perhaps it could then do away with some of the heavy costs of policing in the province by combining the two police forces and give good police service at a reasonable cost.
I can recall the parliamentary assistant's predecessor on a number of occasions discussed with his federal counterparts in Ottawa the issue that some consideration should be given by the federal government to picking up some of the police costs in Ontario. I can see him waving his hands. He agrees with me on that.
If one looks at other provinces that have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police doing their policing, it works out at a very reasonable cost. One does not have to contend with two or three different branches of police departments to get some action. I suggest we should be looking at one police force in Ontario. It might be more economical in the long run. As we said in previous years, we would not have to have three or four communications systems set up within a county structure. Now we have only one in the Niagara region. There are some difficulties with that communications system. It is not ironed out as it should be.
I suggest to the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) while he is here tonight that he should be looking at that report. Perhaps there are some good recommendations he should be following.
The structure of unconditional grants that has been recommended in Bill 28 does not go far enough. The government will have to come up with a better deal than that because it is just going to put the municipalities back further and further. The only way they will be able to come up with additional funds to finance the programs this government has encouraged them to get involved in is through the provision of additional grants.
One other area the government should take a look at regarding grants to municipalities is Wintario grants. In this area, a little is given here and a little there to different organizations and different groups in the community. The government says, "If you match our grant, we will provide some assistance to build a ball park or add to an arena." In the long run, Ontario grants should be given as unconditional grants. It should be increased that way. Let the municipalities decide what priorities they have for spending the Wintario money, whether it be for libraries, hospitals, sports, recreation, physical fitness or whatever.
I think it should go to the municipalities and they should decide. There are a number of service clubs and other organizations within municipalities whose intentions are good, but once they start on programs of this nature with matching grants, they find they end up having to maintain and look after the projects. I suggest Wintario is a direction in which we should look, passing it on through unconditional grants to municipalities.
Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to --
Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is this really Monday?
Hon. Mr. Eaton: Albert is here; it can't be.
Mr. Breaugh: It can't be Monday, can it?
The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): That is not a point of order. The member for Ottawa East has the floor. Let us have more respect, please. Why is the member for Waterloo North standing up? Is this a point of order or a point privilege?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information: He is always here on Monday. I do not know why the New Democrats are not aware of that.
The Acting Speaker: I recognize the member for Ottawa East. Carry on, please.
Mr. Roy: After that rude interruption by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) who is obviously confused, as usual, not knowing which day of the week it is, I shall continue to participate in this debate. Whether it be Monday, Thursday, Friday or Tuesday, I will be here. When it is important and when the government tries to foist on the Ontario public legislation as offensive as this, I will be here.
After all these rude interruptions, I will not have sufficient time to get wound up this evening.
I do not want to repeat what my colleagues the member for Huron-Middlesex and the member for Erie have said is so offensive about this bill. But I find one thing very difficult to take at this time. It is that the government should have the nerve through the mouth of the parliamentary assistant to bring forward this legislation increasing the grants from $10 to $11 at the same time as it is shifting the burden of the sales tax to school boards and municipalities.
10:20 p.m.
The latest budget imposes a sales tax on school supplies and materials, school buildings and buses, and I could go on and on. I have not made a calculation but intuition tells me that probably the sales tax that will be transferred to the school boards and municipalities will probably be greater than the unconditional grants to be given under this legislation.
The government has the audacity and hypocrisy to tell the people how gracious and generous it is at the provincial level at the same time the Treasurer of Ontario is taking it away with the other hand. If one does not denounce this hypocritical and two-faced approach to provincial politics, I think he is not doing his job. That is why I am here this evening to denounce this legislation.
Possibly even more offensive is the continued approach on the part of this government to treat regional police forces differently from all the other police forces. I think it is appropriate when we are discussing this, and many of us have been raising this issue constantly over many years --
Mr. Bradley: With different Solicitors General.
Mr. Roy: With different Solicitors General as my colleague says. It is appropriate that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) is here this evening. I ask the Solicitor General if the policing in areas where there is no regional force is deficient? Is he trying to penalize these police forces? How can he sit there silent when a few police forces receive $17 per capita and the others only get $12?
Does he want a regional force in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton? If that is what he wants he should say so as some of his predecessors have said. This is a serious business. Just in Ottawa-Carleton I would think we are losing something like $2.5 million because he sees fit to treat them differently from other regional forces. Does he feel the policing in Ottawa-Carleton is deficient, that there should be a regional force? If he does, he should tell us so and tell the public of Ottawa-Carleton. He should go there and institute a regional force.
I look at the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman), who is loved in Ottawa-Carleton. They love him there ever since he started talking about a new courthouse. But as a member from that area, how can he sit there and not denounce the fact that Ottawa-Carleton is losing $5 per capita because it has retained its own force? How can he sit there as a minister and accept that kind of treatment?
I trust the parliamentary assistant will be talking to his boss, the Honourable Claude Bennett. Can members believe that Claude, the fighter for Ottawa-Carleton, is the minister who is pushing legislation which is denying his own area $5 a head, or $2.5 million? Can members imagine that? Somebody says "fair." On what basis is that fair? Can anyone over there tell me why it is regional forces should get $5 per head more? Can the parliamentary assistant?
Mr. Rotenberg: Yes. I will if you will let me.
Mr. Roy: Some of us have been around here for 10 years. Some of us have been around here in spite of the fraud that the government has perpetrated on the people of Ontario for such a long time. We are still here and we have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation from that side as to why the people of Ontario who do not happen to have a regional force get $5 less per head. Such legislation is not only offensive, it is unjust and inequitable.
I see so many of the Conservative members on that side nodding their heads. I should put on the record that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) is nodding his head. I see the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) is acquiescing. I can tell that the look on his face is one of acquiescence. If the man were on a jury we could tell what the verdict would be.
If we were to spend the rest of the week denouncing this bill we would probably not give sufficient merit to the proposal and the offensive aspect of this legislation. Certain areas of Ontario are being penalized for something they know nothing about.
I say to the up and coming leader to be, the leader in waiting -- what is the member for London South (Mr. Walker) the minister of?
Mr. Bradley: Industry and Trade.
Mr. Roy: I should know that. In the last pamphlet I opened there was a full-page glossy picture of the minister. It was beautiful. The people will like it. His predecessor, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), did not have the nerve to do that.
I ask the Minister of Industry and Trade, who understands the legalities of it, why are the police forces of the people of these areas being penalized?
The Solicitor General is not prepared to say, "We want to change the policing in Ottawa-Carleton." If he is not prepared to say they are prepared to change then I cannot see any reason for this.
I find it very sad that the minister, who is penalizing his own area, would not have the guts to be here this evening to answer some of my questions on this very issue. Why did the House leader not whip him in here to give us some answers on this legislation? I say to the House leader, "Get into your limo, go and get him, bring him down here to give us an explanation of what is going on."
At the time the minister took over the Municipal Affairs and Housing portfolio, that was one of the issues I mentioned to him. I was nice to him on that day and I said: "Claude -- "
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the honour- able member to refer to the position or to the seat. Would he also be aware that the clock is wrong and we are very close to the hour of adjournment.
Mr. Roy: If the minister passes this legislation he will be considered deceased in Ottawa-Carleton. The reason I referred to "Claude" was because I found it to be endearing.
I say to the parliamentary assistant and the minister, for God's sake give us an adequate explanation for this, otherwise give the people of Ontario what they deserve in areas other than the regional areas. They should quit penalizing people for doing something for which, according to their own ministers, they have no explanation.
The Acting Speaker: Is there a motion to adjourn the debate? Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate? In that case, Mr. Rotenberg.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, if there are no other speakers, and in view of the time, I think we should take the vote on second reading. I will give the explanation at some other juncture of this debate.
Mr. Breaugh: I think that's a bit much.
Mr. Laughren: I was just about to rise and speak.
The Acting Speaker: Agreed?
Mr. Breaugh: No, no.
Mr. Rotenberg: There are no more speakers. The motion is on the floor.
The Acting Speaker: Is there any debate to be made?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would expect and hope that the member for Wilson Heights would adjourn the debate and then give us a proper reply next day.
The Acting Speaker: It is 10:30 of the clock. Is there a motion to adjourn the debate?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will move --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant, as is his right, has moved second reading and you have no alternative but to take the vote.
10:30 p.m.
Mr. Laughren: Point of order, Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Roy: It is past 10:30 p.m. The House is adjourned.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I move the adjournment of the debate.
The Acting Speaker: No. The question has been called.
Mr. Ruston: On a point of order --
Hon. Mr. Gregory: You can't call a point of order when you are calling a vote.
Mr. Riddell: What do you know about it?
Hon. Mr. Gregory: I know that much.
Mr. Ruston: I am going to refuse to sit down.
The Acting Speaker: When the member for Wilson Heights had the floor, he moved the question. The question has been moved for second reading of Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.
An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --
The Acting Speaker: The question has been moved. Shall the motion carry?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.
10:47 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand we have unanimous consent for the honourable member to adjourn the debate. Agreed?
Agreed to.
Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to co-operate with the members of the House.
On motion by Mr. Rotenberg, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:48 p.m.