role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 22, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L094 - Thu 22 Jun 1978 / Jeu 22 jun 1978

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH ACT

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

INTERIM SUPPLY

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH ACT

THIRD READING

CITY OF LONDON ACT

HAMILTON CIVIC HOSPITALS ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CITY OF THUNDER BAY ACT

POLY AIRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ACT

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

QUEBEC POLICY ON CONSTRUCTION HIRING

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

TEACHERS’ QUALIFICATIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

DUMP TRUCK LICENCES

INTERJECTION BY MEMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD INDUSTRY INQUIRY

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

EMPLOYEES’ HEALTH AND SAFETY

COMMITTAL OF DOCTOR

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

MEAT PACKING DISPUTE

HOSPITAL BOARD REPORTS

OHIP BENEFITS

SCHEDULE

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ANNUAL REPORT, 1976-77

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMPANY LAW

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

SUMMER RECESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LINE FENCES ACT

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EMPLOYMET ACT

METRIC CONVERSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

HOSPITAL ABORTIONS PROCEDURES ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by way of some explanation, I thought we might start with Bill 124. The parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) can’t be here this morning, but will be here later on today, so we would then go to Bill 126, and hopefully find some way to accommodate Bill 35 of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) before noon hour, because he has to be away this afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: Busy fellow.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With some discussion with the other two House leaders, we would add Bill 19 for some consideration as well.

Mr. Nixon: Where in the list?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think we will just put it in committee of the whole and do it at the end of all the other legislation.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved second reading of Bill 124,

An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (2nd Session).

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the bill extends the application of the rent review legislation for two months. This is something that was brought forward, not only by my colleagues in the caucus of the Liberal Party, but also from other members in the House since, because of the notice requirements in the legislation, if we did not give it this extension, there would not be adequate time in the fall, when the Legislature resumes, for us to deal with the matter without there being some dislocation and maybe even a hiatus in the application of the regulation.

We believe that the bill is necessary. The standing committee has reviewed the alternatives in rent review very thoroughly and the House has now accepted their report which, we are told by the minister, will be acted upon with dispatch and without delay and effectively when the Legislature resumes in the autumn.

Therefore this bill, being simply a stopgap measure, has our support.

Mr. Makarchuk: We will be supporting this bill as well. We recognize that it is a stopgap measure that the minister has introduced until we can overcome the difficulties inherent in the other bill.

I would like to point out to the Legislature that this party supports rent controls and this party recognizes the fact that when the report recommends that rent controls should expire in 1980 it is really looking at a dream world. We said that when the report was being presented. We should recognize that there is no way that this province at this time is going to end rent controls. Rent controls are here to stay. The reason is that there are absolutely no initiatives on the part of that government over there to provide affordable housing for people in this province.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, come on.

Mr. Nixon: That’s decided by the Legislature, not by the NDP.

Mr. Makarchuk: Until such time as we have affordable housing, we will have rent controls. It’s just like market value assessment which the government keeps saying it will bring in and which it keeps putting off; it’s not going to bring that in.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of which you’re in favour, of course.

Mr. Makarchuk: There is no way the government is going to cancel rent control. I wish the minister would try to get away from this dream-world existence.

Mr. Havrot: You’re living in a dream world, a fairy-tale world.

Mr. Makarchuk: We don’t want to be in an “I told you so” position next year or a year and a half hence, but it appears to me that a year and a half hence we will be going through the same exercise again. We will be coming in with another ad hoc bill extending rent controls to try to resolve the problem.

Mr. Nixon: You want it built into the constitution.

Mr. Foulds: Right. Why not?

Mr. Makarchuk: Why not? Absolutely.

Mr. McClellan: Which constitution?

Mr. Makarchuk: The new one or the old one?

We have to recognize that rent controls are here to stay and we have to try to make them work and make them work properly.

The committee’s report comes to a great extent from the hearings that were held and the number of people who came to the hearings. The report does reflect some of the concerns raised in the hearings.

This party wishes to be on record that it would like to have seen the new buildings included under rent controls as well. It seems to us that under the proposals in the report, people who put up new buildings will have an opportunity to charge economic rents. Also, the tribunals -- and this was part of the report -- would take into account the additional costs, et cetera, that perhaps would be faced by new builders and, therefore, the builders would be entitled to charge the economic rents to ensure that they have a normal return on their costs as well as a profit.

It seems to us in this party that leaving new buildings without coverage under rent controls was an unnecessary suggestion, and they should be covered.

The idea of establishing a tribunal is an excellent one. It seems to me, again, that this came out of the presentations made at the hearings. It will bring a sense of informality. The rent hearings will become open, uncomplicated. Perhaps the hearings will be held at times when people can attend them. Perhaps the legalistic complexity that surrounds the hearings at this time will be removed and we will have a much fairer operation.

We in the NDP are concerned about the fact that the tribunal will consist of only one person, as suggested by the ministry staff. It seems to us that if you have three people, one representing the tenant, one representing the landlord and a neutral party -- if there is such a person -- it would be a lot fairer, again, in comparison to what it is now. We had complaints from tenants in their presentations to the effect that some of the rent control officers were really defeated Tory hacks and they did not know what they were doing; they did not give reasons for their decisions and they did not take into consideration --

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the honourable member that the only thing contained in this bill is to extend the provisions of the act for a further two months.

Mr. Makarchuk: Right, Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with you. I will not discuss Tory hacks any more.

The bill arises out of the report that was provided by the committee. It is a report as a result of the green paper on rent control and, therefore it seems to me there should be some allowance or some recognition, some discussion on where it stems from. The bill is part of the recommendations that rent controls be extended at this time, so until such time --

Mr. Speaker: But not contained in the bill.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, not contained, but implied, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: There were Tory hacks on the committee too.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t provoke me this morning. Let’s get it over with.

Mr. Deans: The thought that you might be provoked strikes terror into our hearts.

Mr. Makarchuk: When the minister is dealing with the new legislation, and I presume he will be drafting the new legislation some time this fall, I hope the minister takes into account some of the problems that were raised at the hearings regarding the operation of rent review and the suggestion that rent controls, rent review, tenant protection and everything else be combined under one tribunal, which I think is an excellent suggestion.

I hope the minister, when he brings in this legislation, takes these matters into account. I hope he also takes into account the suggestions that the matter of arrears in rent, collection of rent, et cetera, is also to be handled by the tribunal so that the people, the landlords, particularly the small ones, do not have to go --

Mr. Speaker: The member insists on referring to something that is not in the bill so, therefore, is not a principle and not debatable.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t you sit down?

Mr. Makarchuk: However, I hope the minister takes those matters into consideration.

Mr. Nixon: “However” is not in the bill either.

Mr. Makarchuk: I wish to conclude that the government has to recognize the fact that the problem is not the lack of housing, the problem is the affordability of housing and until such time as we get down to the sort of nitty-gritty --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The availability of housing is not in the bill. The member knows that. I am going to have to ask him to take his seat unless he refers to the principle of the bill, and that is the extension of the provisions of the act for a further two months.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: However.

Mr. Makarchuk: However, Mr. Speaker, the bill does apply to rent control and the rent control legislation is related directly to housing, to the lack of housing, housing costs --

Mr. Nixon: Housing is related to the provincial budget, the provincial budget is related to the constitution --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hit the gong, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Makarchuk: What I am trying to point out to the minister is that if we are going to deal with this problem adequately in the future --

Mr. Nixon: We have got that now, that is the reason the bill is here.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- we will have to start looking very seriously at construction costs, we will have to start looking at things like land banking and so on, and we will be able to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The honourable member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I just briefly want to comment upon the situation which allows an extension of the present legislation for two months. In the report given to the House, there was, of course, a most important comment --

Mr. Deans: Which is not before the Legislature.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- which called for ensuring that there would be no interruption in tenant operations. I recall only the first resolution, which was that a revised rent review program replace without interruption the current Residential Premises Rent Review Act. It was, of course, most important to those of us in committee to ensure that there would be no difficulty in the giving of notice or in the dealings between either landlords or tenants with each other so that there would be no problem ensuring that the will of the Legislature was not subverted by any uncertainty within the market for rental accommodation.

[10:15]

The minister has said he will clearly bring forward the view he will show in his legislation by early September, and that we will have ample time to debate the legislation, which means it will be before us, immediately upon our return, in mid-October. I would think that between mid-October and the end of November, there will be sufficient time to debate the bill. And the legislation will be in place well before the three-month notice period which would end on February 28.

I believe this is a practical way of dealing with the problem and I commend the minister for setting out a timetable that assures us that difficulties which could otherwise occur will be avoided.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish to reply at length to the comments made by the member for Brantford.

Mr. Kennedy: They are not in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: However, I will do it when it’s in order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Tell us about beer in the ball park instead.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You’ll have to stick to the press for that.

Mr. Kerrio: There is a connection.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to confirm what the member for Kitchener has said. I think it’s important that the House be in a position to deal with this matter early next fall so the bill can be passed in November in order to meet the 90-day notice period for the February 28 deadline.

The date admittedly was picked partly because we feel it is within our capability, at least in the government, to produce a comprehensive piece of legislation by September, and in order that we may indicate to the public what that piece of legislation will be. We hope and expect that all members of the assembly will work as hard as necessary in the early weeks of the new session, next fall, in order that, in fairness to all landlords and tenants, we may have as early passage of that new legislation as possible, but doing so with every bit of deliberation and public input that will be necessary at that time. It is a difficult piece of legislation.

Mr. Nixon: In whose judgement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the motivating factors behind today’s small amending bill is, the bill which will succeed the current legislation will have many of the same elements as the existing legislation. Therefore, it becomes fairer to simply extend the current program than to ask landlords and tenants to guess what is going to happen.

We did not and still do not anticipate an enormous problem developing if nothing were done, but the two schemes coincide so much --

Mr. Nixon: That guessing business was plan one, was it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- it would be appropriate to provide some consistency and reliability to the future for everyone involved. Hence, this piece of legislation. We do look forward to some hard work in the early days of the session next fall in order to make the February 28 date practical, reasonable and effective.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

House in committee of the whole.

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

Section 1 agreed to.

section 2:

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a motion on

section 2 of the bill. It was circulated to the critics.

Mr. Nixon: It must have taken a lot of printing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. F. S. Miller moves that sections 2 to 5 of the bill be renumbered as sections 3 to 6 and that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

2. Subsection 4 of

section 25 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

(4) The minister may enter into an agreement with a licensee for the promotion and maintenance of the productivity of the licensed area by establishing, regenerating and tending forests and employing silvicultural cutting systems to regenerate forests.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We discussed this matter during second reading of the bill in regard to the principle the minister is establishing hereby. We indicated at that time we were in favour and we applaud the minister’s initiative in this regard.

There is one matter that does disturb me, however. I’m making an amendment to a further section, but I would also like to make an amendment to

section 4 that would require the minister to table any agreements with the licensees in regard to the agreement he has for regeneration, and that these should be tabled in the Legislature during the session within 15 days of the agreement being signed or within 15 days of the new session.

I think it’s important that the Legislature and the public of Ontario have access to these agreements because it’s very important, as we’ve said for years, that forest regeneration increase and improve in Ontario. Without such an amendment and without a commitment from the minister that these agreements will be made public, it would be extremely difficult for us to know exactly what the extent of reforestation and regeneration in the province is.

We would also like to know what the format is for agreements between the minister and the various companies and whether or not the ministry itself will also continue to provide some of the regeneration in some of the licensed areas. The bottom line of all this is we want to be assured there is a higher level of regeneration going on; that the agreement between the province and the company is fair and equitable to both sides and, particularly, that we will be assured of a continuing allowable cut in the province to keep employment in the mills growing.

I think it’s very important that this be done. I would like to hear from the minister whether he intends to pursue this in this way.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The willingness to produce any of the material on our

part is there. My problem in giving you a carte blanche agreement that all agreements between all companies and government will be produced in public may be that some of those are of use to competitors in certain circumstances. There’s always a degree of confidentiality in some kinds of agreements with private organizations. That would bother me.

We don’t see any real problem with the regeneration agreements being made public. I don’t foresee us not being able to make them public. I just have to put in one rider: there may be times when types of agreements we enter into may have confidential or classified information, specific to an industry, of use to its competitor. I think we have to be very cautious to maintain that trust in government that a company needs to have vis-à-vis its competitors. That is the only reason. I am satisfied anything else should be public information.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate what the minister has said, but my concern really is that everybody be given a fair shake in these matters. Quite frankly, I am a little loath to allow the minister or his predecessors -- I have no problem with the present minister’s honesty and integrity, but there have been some in the past and may be some in the future whose integrity and honesty we might not be quite as fully prepared to accept as the present minister’s.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You might be there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That certainly strengthens my argument, I might say.

Mr. Foulds: We certainly would have severe reservations about that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That makes the argument right there.

It seems to me that we have to guarantee to everyone who is involved in the forest industry -- and basically we are talking about the 10, 11 or 12 largest companies which are going to enter into these agreements; basically those are the people we are talking about -- it seems to me that while there may be odd circumstances in which special arrangements can and perhaps should be made for regeneration agreements, that in fact the agreements with each company as to the cost that is going to be paid back to the company, or the subsidy that the ministry is going to pay, or whatever range of negotiations takes place, those should as closely as possible be equal and the same for each and every company.

I would say to the minister that we are going on faith greatly already, and we indicated, both ourselves and the third party, in the principle of

section 2 that we were willing to give the minister the authority to do that, but I think we would like some assurance -- you haven’t given us any idea of how you are going to do it -- that this information, at least, is going to be available so that we can review it and discuss it in a rational manner.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to table regeneration agreements.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would simply like to congratulate the minister for that particular willingness because I think that is an important step forward in making things public in Ontario, and I would support the thrust of the remarks made by my colleague and friend, the member for Rainy River. He will deny that, and actually I went too far; it is just this early morning sitting.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Foulds: I think it would also be useful, not only if the agreements were tabled, but also if we had reported formally, either to the Legislature or to the committee hearing the estimates of the ministry, on an annual basis, the progress that we are making with regard to this new thrust in regeneration. After all, it will be with one or two or three companies initially, and we would like, in Ontario and in this Legislature, to monitor the progress, whether it has been successful or unsuccessful, the comparison between the success in this method and in those limits where the ministry retains responsibility.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to make that formal commitment, not only on his behalf as the present minister, but also on behalf of the ministry as a matter of policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am delighted to have our progress on regeneration subject to the scrutiny of this House, or of the process in the estimates. This year, as you know, we had the regeneration conference.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You haven’t been too fussy about it during the estimates.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t guarantee that we will always have an annual regeneration conference. I can guarantee that there will be one next year. That is also a convenient forum, if it continues, for the members of the opposition to assess in a less controversial and perhaps more technical atmosphere, the progress that is really being made. I, for one, would like to make sure that both parties --

[10:30]

Mr. Nixon: You won’t even take us up to the north to look at it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Mr. Nixon: Promises, promises.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to make sure now that both parties understand they are welcome at that conference next year as participants and observers. I don’t care how many members come from the respective caucuses. If, in fact, there are a number interested, I hope they come.

Mr. Nixon: What about the Brampton commitment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In all honesty, the member will find I am not doing too badly on that.

Mr. Nixon: I hope not. It certainly --

Hon. F. S. Miller: It must be nice for the member to be able to lift his head from reading the Globe and Mail and sound so full of intelligence.

Mr. Samis: It’s hard to take, eh, Mickey?

Mr. Hennessy: That’s right.

Mr. Nixon: A big sigh.

Mr. Hennessy: Stand up.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Is there anything further on this amendment?

Mr. Nixon: I was not reading.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Just in the spirit of the minister’s remarks, has he not had a somewhat informal agreement with a timber company in northwestern Ontario along the lines he has outlined in the bill? Could he give us some indication of how he has done with that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The kind of agreement we foresee resulting from this amended clause would be more comprehensive than anything we have done in the past. I believe the kind of “regeneration agreements” the ministry has been allowed to enter into, in the past, have generally been very restricted and narrow in scope. My staff are assuring me I’m correct in that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, they’re not; they’re talking to each other.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We are looking forward to a much broader assumption of responsibility, in effect, of those responsibilities currently held by the crown and by the crown only. As you know, we needed this to permit us to sign agreements in the interval between now and the next sitting of this House. Otherwise there would be no statutory authority for us to conclude the negotiations currently under way. I hope they result in signed agreements. They are the first of a kind and we may yet find real difficulties; but progress is good.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have one further question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I’m presuming the minister is considering that the province will subsidize, or pay, so much per acre to the companies for these regeneration agreements. The minister is nodding his head that this is correct.

I also presume the companies will be after the minister to provide a longer land tenure commitment so they can plan their capital budget and expansion based on that. I presume that will be part of the agreement. He nods yes to that as well.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I should qualify that. As I understand the agreements, they will be subject to the companies’ adequately regenerating the areas for which they are responsible and their licence renewals would be dependent upon an audit performed by us.

Mr. Foulds: The second last remark of the minister prompts this question. He indicated that previous agreements had been rather limited. As I read the previous clause, and as I read the present clause, the real difference in technical terms that I notice is that the terms “regeneration,” “tending” and “silviculture” are used. Did your legal branch indicate to you or to previous ministers that under the present phrasing, “the promotion and maintenance of the productivity of the licenced area,” these specific references could not be carried out?

What really puzzles me, in legal terms, is why the vague phrasing which would seem to give the authority in the previous clause was not sufficient and why you had to introduce this clause, which is, as we mentioned earlier, a new bill?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I may have a note here in a second helping me with the technical phraseology. It says here that the old agreements would not allow modified cutting. The amendment will -- if I can read the handwriting -- potentially allow us to have 50,000 acres of spruce covered by it.

Mr. Foulds: I’m sorry, what was that?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Whatever that means.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Okay. I know when we discussed this in my office at the time it was required, the people working on the new agreements had been in consultation with our legal staff to see whether the authority was in

section 25 of the old act and they felt it was not, that some of the agreements to pay the money referred to by the member for Rainy River would not necessarily pass the scrutiny of the provincial auditor without a clarification of this section.

Mr. Foulds: Does this imply that the mechanism that you are going to be using is a direct payment back to companies with which you have agreements rather than a lessening of the dues that are established under further clauses in the bill, or is it that you could not reduce the costs, the area charges or the stumpage dues in further clauses without this section?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If you recall in the estimates debates, at least one member, or maybe more, referred to the fact that the costs of regeneration and protection in the forests often exceeded the total revenues the Crown received. Therefore, it was obvious that offset would not necessarily cover the costs incurred by companies. They will have other benefits besides the reduction of Crown dues, but reduction may not cover the total costs of the program we currently are doing. Therefore, there will be need for direct payment in a number of areas and, therefore there will be a need for authority to pay that money.

Mr. Foulds: That, of course, raises this very interesting philosophical problem between us and that is, are you saying -- and I want to have this clear -- that we, in fact, will be paying out of the general revenues of the province funds exceeding the revenues that we gain from individual companies, or is that a very real possibility?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the timber revenue dues and the area charges that are collected as a result of this particular statute and the regulations under it are only a small part of the total revenues gained by governments from the forest products industry. They are an easily identifiable part, but I think one has to remember that there is a $300 million payroll in this industry, 28,000 direct jobs, plus corporate taxes, all of which flow from essentially the health of the forest.

These charges have always been exceeded. In other words, we are not intending to do something that is not currently happening. The government does spend more money directly on forests than area charges and Crown dues produce. They are, I am told, six to eight per cent of the costs of wood currently in the industry. They are deemed to be a fair raw material charge for the value of wood; that wood is processed and we also participate in the profits of processing.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t want to belabour the point, and I certainly want the amendment to pass, but as I recall, however, the area charges and the revenue that we gained from the stumpage dues and so on did not pretty well match the silvicultural costs within the ministry. You are now talking about the total management costs, am I correct in that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you very much.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3, as renumbered, agreed to.

section 4, as renumbered:

Mr. T. P. Reid: I just have a couple of points I want to make. On

section 49 of the act, under

section 4, it just seems to me that there might be something somewhat unfair in these two clauses, in that people, who have been operating on the basis of what their costs were, projected and budgeted on the basis of that response. These two sections now allow the minister to change those crown dues and area charges, as of April 1 even on timber that has already been cut under previous legislation and agreement. That seems to be somewhat unfair to some of the people involved in the forest industry. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We gave a great deal of notice to the industry about this proposed change. In fact, the change is lower than they anticipated. They expected a 70 per cent increase in charges, and we have reduced it to 50 per cent.

Mr. T. P. Reid: So they’re happy as heck.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think they’re satisfied -- let’s put it that way -- that the charges they are currently paying, under these new regulations $41.20 per square mile retroactive to the first of April of this year, are fair.

We had a chance to discuss it through the Ontario Forest Industries Association meetings with my ministry. Of course, it is natural for industry to resent any increase in charges but when they look back across the time since the last charge was made -- I don’t know, 10 years or thereabouts -- they realize that in fact it is not an annual increment that is excessive. Our purpose in increasing the area charge is simply to give some penalty to companies who hold excessive crown timber areas without using them.

Mr. Foulds: The minister has rightly pointed out that the increase, a 50 per cent increase over the last 10 years which really amounts to five per cent per year, is not horrendous. He also made a commitment that over the next four years they were going to be increased by approximately 10 per cent per year.

Could he tell us what reaction he has had from the companies involved since his statement; whether his commitment is the same on that, does it seem to make sense, and what variations may occur in that over the next four years?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have discussed with the industry that there should be an annual increment of about 10 per cent. Again, naturally their response would be that no increase could be afforded. But, having said that, I think they have accepted it and we intend to apply it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to make a comment on that. It seems to me that the minister is getting educated in his ministry and has gone some way to improving the economics of the resource industries.

The minister has introduced a bill and indicated in many of his speeches that he understands the cyclical nature, particularly of the mining industry but maybe the area dues is not the appropriate place to also apply the philosophy of cyclical nature. We are in somewhat of a strained situation in regard to our forest industries and while I am not making any brief for the forest industries per se, it seems that the minister might want to apply his philosophy of cyclical nature to the forest industry as well. It doesn’t seem to me that you are doing that, particularly if you are going to increase the area dues 10 per cent willy-nilly regardless of the economic situation in the country.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think we have to take into perspective the total revenue generated by area dues versus the total revenue generated by the crown timber dues themselves.

If I am not wrong, out of $32 million in round figures to be collected this year, some $2 million will be from the area costs. Next year it will be $3 million, so the charge for the area dues is not currently 10 per cent of the total amount the government is taking from the forest industry. The cyclical

part is accounted for by the other 90 per cent. The very purpose of this bill is to index it to the selling price to allow it to fluctuate as the prices go up and down.

[10:45]

Mr. Foulds: I would just like to support the minister on this particular point, because the area charge does not seem to me to be the appropriate area to apply a cyclical tax, if that is what it is. I think the minister made the point earlier that it would, in fact, encourage those companies that are holding excessive area limits to give those up if they found the cost burdensome, and that they would then be free for the use of other perhaps smaller and independent entrepreneurs who might want to take advantage of a smaller

section of limits that are not now accessible or worthwhile to them. This seems to me to be an area where the -- I hate to use the term -- flat rate charge is an appropriate charge.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I agree with that.

Section 4, as renumbered, agreed to.

section 5, as renumbered:

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we were just getting into this. When we look at clause (

d) we are talking about the cyclical nature of the forest industry. We can certainly agree with this, although again the whole matter seems somewhat vague, and I would have preferred to see a little more background information on just how you were going to implement this indexing situation. I do have a particular concern about

section (

d) in regard to the Crown dues. It seems to me that this information should be made public at some point in the operation of the Ministry of Natural Resources and of this Legislature.

I wonder if the minister could indicate if he has given any consideration to making these agreements public; and secondly, if he can maybe put on the record exactly how he foresees this indexing working, and really what index it is going to be tied to.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Yes, I can explain that, and explain also that all this information, in so far as I can tell, is public. There should be no hidden information of the type that relates to Crown dues.

First, you are giving me the authority in this act to create regulations which, in effect, will set the Crown dues every quarter, based upon the price indices of certain of the wood products and pulp and paper products in Ontario and Canada, as produced by StatsCan or by the information sources we use. I think we use a six-month running average, so that every time we would change the crown dues it wouldn’t be just for the three-month period preceding the change, but for the six-month period preceding the change. So if there were sudden changes in any one month they would be dampened by the six-month average.

Therefore, the regulation would set a base for the crown dues at a certain point in time -- I think it was April 1, 1978 -- and we would have an historic average for the last three years that would form that base. In other words, we would dampen it by averaging for three years to that point, and we would say that is the base to which the current crown dues, as set in the regulations, start. We are not really trying to generate more cash by doing so, we are simply trying to get a base to start from.

I am told they will probably go up four or five per cent in that range because of the fact that over the three years prices have been going up in certain of the products, as you know, with the exception of pulp, which is down considerably over that period of time.

Having established a base through taking a three-year average of the various commodity prices, we would then have an index worked out which would move up and down every three months as the prices changed relative to that base, using a six-month average.

Mr. Foulds: I have an amendment to this section.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that

section 4 of the bill, renumbered as

section 5, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“The said

section 51 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“

(2) On and after the first day of July 1979, where regulation is made under clause (

c) or (

d) of subsection 1, the minister shall within 15 days after the regulation is filed with the registrar of regulations lay a copy of the regulation before the assembly if it is in session or, if it is not, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session; and the assembly shall by resolution approve or amend the regulation.

“

(3) An approval of a regulation by a resolution under subsection 2 is effective from the day that the regulation came into force.

“

(4) An amendment to a regulation by a resolution under subsection 2 is effective from the day that the regulation came into force or from such other day thereafter that the assembly may specify in the resolution.

“

(5) Where regulation is amended by a resolution under subsection 2, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall give effect to the resolution by making an amending regulation in accordance with the resolution, and such amending regulation need not be laid before the assembly.”

Mr. Foulds: I think this is an important and fundamental amendment. I met with the minister casually in the hallway the other day and he indicated to me the amendment was not acceptable to him. I am not sure yet how the Liberal Party responds to the amendment. I offer the amendment in the hope that the minister will see the wisdom of it and accept it. If he does not, I hope the members of the Liberal Party will accept it.

I have compromised considerably since I first suggested an amendment to this

section on second reading. At that time, I offered an amendment that would require the entire formula and the entire indexing to be brought to the Legislature in legislation.

Since then I have been persuaded that although it is desirable to have all taxation brought to the Legislature before passage, in this particular case certain technical difficulties made that unworkable and impossible. Nevertheless. I do feel very strongly indeed that one of the major roles of the Legislature is to approve or disapprove taxation.

One of the things that disturbs me greatly -- it arose out of the concern I and many members of my party had over the OHIP debacle earlier this spring --

Mr. Laughren: Good word for it.

Mr. Foulds: -- is that increasingly revenues are coming to the general consolidated revenue fund of the province by way of regulation. It would appear to me that over the last 30 years -- or over the 30 years of Conservative majority government -- the government has wrested from the Legislature this prime responsibility of scrutinizing taxes before they are implemented.

For example, on the question I placed on the order paper, question 30, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) answered that the amount of regulated revenue into the consolidated revenue fund rose from 9.7 per cent in 1974-75 to 11.6 per cent of our income in 1977-78. It rose in hard figures from $884,496,000 in 1974-75 to $1,410,985,000 in 1977-78.

I would think in principle we should have as much of that revenue as possible coming from open sources of taxation. I find the percentage figures more worrying than the absolute figures. When the total in the budget is increasing this much, we are getting into a situation where a sizeable proportion of our revenue is coming from regulation. That gets hidden in terms of the scrutiny that the Legislature has.

In terms of the Ministry of Natural Resources, for example, the revenue yield by regulation, through the management and forest protection royalties -- what are now going to be known as area charges -- actually declined between 1974 and 1977-78, from $1.9 million to roughly $1.4 million in actual revenue that was received in the consolidated revenue fund, according to the figures the Treasurer supplied to me.

On the other hand, the stumpage charged royalties rose in 1974-75 from $19.8 million to roughly $32.22 million. The decline in the area charge -- and it is my understanding that the areas that have been licensed haven’t been declining dramatically or at least that dramatically; if they have, I would like to know why -- should be open and above board; we should see that.

I want to outline for the House and the Liberal Party and the government, the compromises that we, in this party, have made on this particular issue because we could have introduced an amendment that would have required the minister to bring the regulations before the House for implementation.

I was persuaded by very persuasive arguments put to me that that might in fact leave a gap and make it such that the regulations could not be in place, and we might have a loss of revenue from some of the companies involved. Of course, we certainly wouldn’t want that. What I have done is introduce what I think is quite a workable formula.

Mr. Chairman: There are a number of private conversations that make it difficult to hear the speaker.

Mr. Nixon: It is that NDP House leader not paying attention to their new policy.

Mr. Foulds: I recognize the difficulty that is implied here. The minister and all sides of the House, it would seem, want to increase revenues. The minister, and we agree, wants to vary that dependent upon the indices based on the selling price, to reflect market conditions. That requires, as I understand from what the minister said earlier in the House, that basically the regulation will be a formula and any change in the regulation will be a change in that formula. The formula itself is not somehow automatically adjustable should you want to increase one portion of it.

That indicates that it may be necessary in administrative terms, not merely for convenience, but for enforcement -- that’s what persuaded me -- to have the regulation in place and to have it deemed to be in place.

[11:00]

That’s why I have said that the regulation should be brought to the House within 15 days after it is filed with the registrar of regulations. But it is absolutely essential that we reserve the right of the Legislature to vary or amend that regulation because it would require the minister to justify the change to us.

Presumably the present minister being the bright, articulate, charming fellow that he is -- the man with the dazzling smile and the fancy footwork, who is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan -- would like to persuade us to allow him --

Hon. F. S. Miller: I never realized you were so perceptive.

Mr. Foulds: Accept my amendment and I will sit down, or be persuaded by my oratory.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No one else is, so go ahead.

Mr. Foulds: It would force the minister and the ministry to justify the change in the regulation and give actual power back to the Legislature. This is what is important to me, the power to amend that formula, that regulation that assesses a tax if it was unjustified. The minister may very well feel I am picking on him or his ministry because the Treasurer gave me the whole list of ministries that garner fees by regulation and his is by no means the largest. The Ministry of Health, for example, which just so happens coincidentally to be this minister’s former ministry, garnered by regulation approximately 10½ times the revenue his present ministry does. It also spends, what is it? --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sixteen times.

Mr. Foulds: -- sixteen times as much. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications also garners enormous amounts by regulation. But we as legislators can deal only with the bills that are immediately in front of us. The bill immediately in front of us is a bill from the Minister of Natural Resources and this is, in fact, a good place to start in regaining the power of taxation authority to the Legislature.

There was a phrase that was popular during the OHIP debate, “No taxation without legislation.” Even though it is taxation on large corporate entities, which aren’t particular friends of the New Democratic Party, they do deserve the fairness of scrutiny of the taxation levied against them by the Legislature rather than merely through the ministry.

I propose that the date I have included in the amendment, July 1 next year, will give the ministry plenty of time to work out its formula. The implementation, I gather, will in some cases go back to April 1 of this year. That will give the ministry 15 months to find out whether or not this plan is workable and if any significant changes in the regulation need to be brought forward.

I want to point out to the House, and to all members, that my amendment is not without precedent even in this authoritarian House. There is an amendment in the Niagara Escarpment and Planning Development Act that any orders or amendments to that act made under subsection 1 of that act should be brought to the assembly on the day the order is made or within 15 days. There is a pattern. This is not unprecedented in Ontario history. It is, it would appear, unprecedented in terms of this particular kind of matter, a taxation matter, but is very definitely patterned on a piece of legislation, an amendment that has already been passed

I would also like to point out that the method of scrutinizing regulations and the power to amend or vary is fairly common. I understand in the federal House and if that House, authoritarian as it is, particularly under the present Prime Minister -- has the authority to do it, I see no reason why the Ontario Legislature should not have that authority.

The minister may very well object, as I’m sure will some of his officials, that it is not convenient. I submit that convenience is not the prime consideration here. The prime consideration is responsible government. When we talk about responsible government, what do we talk about? We talk about a government that is responsible to a Legislature and a Legislature that is responsible to its electorate. It is time that we, as a responsible Legislature, began wresting back from a government which is authoritarian, even in a minority government situation, the authority that the Legislature has.

What we are saying basically is that there should be no more secret deals. The taxation policies and the changes in those taxation policies, which are often arbitrarily implemented through regulation, should no longer apply in a democratic society.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I take the amendment as a serious one.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The problem with the rhetorical capabilities of some of the members of the NDP is that, given enough time, they can make almost anything sound convincing.

Mr. McClellan: Go with the flow.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I accept that the honourable member said those things with true sincerity --

Mr. Foulds: You better believe it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- but I think we have to look at the implications of the suggestion. When you said you wanted responsible government --

Mr. Laughren: It would be nice.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- I assumed you meant majority government.

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Foulds: Robert Baldwin’s definition of responsible government.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think one would have to look at the problems of the government and look at the basis for this revenue. You have chosen to call it a tax. I would not choose to call it a tax. We do tax the industries. In my opinion, a tax, from the provincial point of view, is something that is related to revenue.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is called economic rent in economics.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In this case we are making a raw material charge for a product or material existing on crown land. The charge is the same for all users of it; the only variation would be in those particular contracts where there is a bonus bid. We do have some cases where a crown due is subject to a bonus -- usually on the more profitable areas -- and bidding is public and, I believe, the results are available. If I’m not wrong, they make up less than 10 per cent of our total revenue at this time.

I would argue that the regulation we are putting in place today is not a tax but a charge for crown timber on crown land, which is quite different from a tax on the profitability of a company taking that crown timber off crown land. That results from many things including the managerial expertise of the company. With that, I would have to say I honestly can’t accept the member’s amendment. I hope my colleagues in the Liberal Party will be persuaded that we are right.

Mr. McClellan: Well, everybody knows you’re right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: With regard to the minister’s comments, I would say that my friend and colleague from Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) referred to me as a “friend” when he was asking for my support and the minister just referred to me as a “colleague,” so I have a little problem with this.

Mr. Conway: The troubles of the Liberal-Labour Party.

Mr. Nixon: It’s public seduction.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Rainy River should stop calling himself Liberal-Labour.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, we have given serious consideration to the amendment. I had intended to move a somewhat similar amendment myself. However, I have to make three points in saying why we will not support the amendment.

First of all I am not going to get into the philosophical argument of what is a tax and what isn’t. I think my friend, Mr. Laughren, would agree that I think what we are talking about is something called economic rent in economics. I don’t know if they still use that term, probably they don’t. It has been a long time.

Mr. Laughren: Are you still reading Eric Kierans?

Mr. T. P. Reid: In any case, the points are these: First of all, I think it is a sheer impossibility for the minister to enter into agreements with the companies, then come back to the Legislature at some future time for ratification. Business just does not, and certainly cannot, operate under those circumstances. The whole thing would grind to a halt.

Mr. Foulds: Nonsense.

Mr. T. P. Reid: My friends in the New Democratic Party do not seem to understand that uncertainty is one of the banes of investment, and certainly the uncertainty of what would happen in this Legislature, especially in minority governments, is enough to send chills up and down anybody’s spine, let alone allow them to enter into any agreements that would have to wait for ratification by this Legislature. That is number one.

Mr. Foulds: No. Not so.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Two, because of the system that the minister is putting into effect with the moving average, it becomes so complicated that it is certainly not something that can be a matter of discussion in this Legislature because it is set by the moving average.

Mr. Martel: You will end up not making a cent. It will be like the mining; we will owe them money.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would presume that these matters as to what that moving average is, obviously, will be made public, so that we are going to know, in effect, what is going on.

Mr. Foulds: There’s no guarantee.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The third point is that the minister indicated in his earlier remarks that, in fact, the agreements will be made public, or that we will, in fact, know what the revenues are that are being derived from this new system.

So my concern is that we do know, and therefore have an opportunity to question both in the House and the Legislature; if I don’t misread the minister, that information will be available so that it can be discussed here. I can’t, in any kind of rational way, agree with the amendment because it just does not make any kind of sense to have those agreements ratified by the Legislature. It is not done in any other case of a similar nature in regard to funds or revenues that are raised by the ministry. And I say that I am satisfied that this information will be made available, and public, and that satisfies my requirement, and I see no reason for the amendment.

Mr. Foulds: It is with a considerable amount of regret that I learned that the Liberal Party will not be supporting our amendment. It is, frankly, of considerable regret to me that the minister and his officials haven’t seen fit to accept the amendment. I say that just as strongly and as forcefully as I can, although quietly this morning, because it seems to me what we are doing here is putting convenience ahead of democracy.

I want to point out very clearly that the amendment that I have submitted does not contribute great uncertainty in terms of the corporation involved; they know full well what the formula is. From the day that the regulation comes into effect, any amendment cannot precede the effective day of any change to new regulation.

There can be a variation from a future date if the assembly should decide that it comes into effect after the original regulation.

What I would submit is that that would take some extra computer time. But I think the record should show that the Liberal Party and the government, when it came to this matter, decided that openness in terms of charges -- whether you want to argue about whether they are taxes or economic rent or fees -- would not be subject to the scrutiny of the Legislature, and action by the Legislature. This is the important point.

[11:15]

The member for Rainy River indicated: “as long as the minister tables the agreement.” In a majority government situation -- whether that majority is a NDP government majority, a Liberal government majority or a Conservative government majority -- it is my firm conviction that should be subject to the will of the Legislature; that should be subject to scrutiny by the Legislature.

I gave this amendment a very good deal of thought. It may seem immodest of me, but I came to the conclusion that when the New Democratic Party forms a government in this province, I or any other person in this party could live with this amendment in administrative terms, in governmental terms, and in legislative terms.

What the member for Rainy River is proposing is, frankly, what the Liberal Party always proposes -- that is, a toothless tiger. They want to be able to stand up and ask questions but they don’t want to take any responsibility for action when they’re in opposition.

What we are proposing is giving some responsibility to the Legislature, not just the sometimes rather fruitless kicking and screaming that we do through questioning; not just outrage and talking to the press and the television cameras afterwards, but action, which means we would have the power -- particularly in a minority government situation but also possibly in other situations because the authority was vested in the Legislature -- to change what were unjust and unfair levies by any minister or ministry that may come in the future. That is the essential principle of this amendment.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Before you put the motion, it is my understanding of the rules that if you put the motion the entire

section carries. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: No. This is adding to the section. If someone wishes to debate the rest and this

section does not carry, I would put that

section to carry.

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On

section (

e) of the renumbered clause, which gives the minister authority to fix the times at which crown charges are payable and the rate and kind of interest to be charged on overdue accounts and prescribing the method of calculating or compounding any such interest, I have a slight problem and question in relation to that section.

In the auditor’s report of March 1977, on page 31, there were timber licence fees held in trust of something, and the auditor states that in order to protect crown charges in excess of $682,000 owing by a lumber company for stumpage fees, forest products in the forms of logs and lumber were seized by the province. A chartered bank also made a claim against the forest products. The question of ownership has been left to the courts to decide in an action that is still pending.

I wonder if we could amend this

section to ensure that the province has first call in these matters to collect crown dues, timber dues, or crown charges. The province should be the first to be paid, over and above the chartered banks or whatever, other than perhaps a mechanic’s lien action. Surely the province should have the first call for their crown charges. Would the minister care to comment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t really answer that question. I may get some advice from my legal and ministry staff on that matter. I had the belief and understanding that the crown dues were the first charge. I don’t know if that court case has been determined or whether in fact our assumption has been proved to be correct or incorrect. Perhaps somebody would be able to tell me. Here’s a note coming in a second. Does anybody in my staff know that? If so, just send me one.

Mr. Van Horne: They are flipping coins.

Mr. Martel: They are waiting for Grossman to serve a beer, the pause that refreshes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Cold.

Mr. Conway: Have you given any speeches in Brockville lately, Frank?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, but I have given some speeches in Pembroke. I find it a very fine community to visit; very receptive to the truth.

Mr. Ruston: That’s why they elected the member.

Mr. Roy: You just increased his majority.

Mr. Conway: Just remember, I am in the lumber business, Frank.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: You will get no donations, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have received legal advice that since the matter is currently sub judice, it should not be discussed by me until the court makes a decision.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate that. My concern was, not being a lawyer, that perhaps we could amend the act so these matters won’t in fact have to go to court.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish any amendment to any act would guarantee something wouldn’t go to court. The honourable gentleman on your right hand side, whom I believe is a member of the bar, would assure you that they will find a reason to take it to court in any event, even the amendment.

Mr. Bolan: We need the money.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously, and there is no group I would rather help.

Mr. Pope: There is nothing wrong with that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At least he’s honest.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall

section 5, as renumbered, carry, other than the stacked vote? Carried.

Hon. F. S. Miller moves that

section 6 of the bill, as renumbered, be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:

6(1) This act, except

section 1 and subsection 1 of

section 5, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

(2) Section 1 and subsection 1 of

section 5 shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as renumbered and amended, agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: When do you plan to give royal assent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Tomorrow, I assume.

Section 7, as renumbered, agreed to.

Mr. Conway: How are they ever going to make a profit?

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order: When is this session concluding? Are we going to have a vote?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would assume we would not give this bill third reading until we have had the vote. Presumably third reading can be given tomorrow, whenever the votes are determined by the House leaders.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order: Mr. Chairman, I need some guidance; perhaps you can help me. Since I will not be in the House tomorrow, I will have to have somebody else do it. I assume that’s in order.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: That’s in order.

Mr. Foulds: Have you got a parliamentary assistant?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Conway: Don’t trust him with it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Frank, you’re losing control.

Mr. Conway: You keep doing that, Frank, and I’ll be elected forever.

On motion by Hon. F. S. Miller, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

CITY OF HAZELDEAN-MARCH ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved second reading of Bill 131,

An Act to establish the City of Hazeldean-March.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At this point, no doubt there may be some questions in the committee stage and perhaps during second reading. All I have to say, simply, is that this, having been a dropped issue last week --

Mr. Conway: You like to boast.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- was activated by resolution of both councils. I would simply like to put on record the high degree of co-operation we have had from all three councils involved, members opposite, and members on this side of the House. I would also say in fairness to members opposite, members of my own staff, myself, my parliamentary assistant, and to the three councils involved, that there are a number of unanswered or unsolved questions as yet.

As I indicated in the statement on Tuesday, I have no doubt we will have some amendments to make to this bill in the fall. But this will allow the election to go ahead on the new basis and bring the new city into being at the appropriate time. If there are changes which need to be made, they can be made at the fail session.

Mr. Roy: I can see why the poor Treasurer, that minister who has been so emasculated the last while, is somewhat apprehensive when he gives a statement on this bill. Our approach has never been one to filibuster; we are a constructive opposition.

Mr. G. Taylor: You are not here often enough to know how to do it.

Mr. Laughren: Are you trying to tell us you have nothing to say?

Mr. Roy: We shall look at the legislation and do what we think is best for the legislation. But I have to say of this whole process that if ever there was evidence of government bungling, of a government which goes forward backwards two steps, of a government which really seems no longer able to govern, it is this whole sorry mess about the Mayo report in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is this on the principle?

Mr. Roy: Here we go with the fellows to my left who would not know what the principle of the bill was even though they read it about 10 times. The origins of this bill --

Mr. Martel: Speak to the bill and let’s get on with it.

Mr. Handleman: Let’s discuss it.

Mr. Martel: The fount of intelligence, you are here for a day.

Mr. McClellan: Let’s have some consistency here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: -- stem from the Mayo report which I have here dated October 1976. The Mayo report was created with some hoopla prior to 1966, and the purpose of it was to review the whole regional government, the local government aspect. The premise was there were problems in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They were to give it a complete review and come back with suggestions to the government as to how best we could have a working process in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Some $250,000 was spent in the process and the work on the Mayo report was completed over a couple of years.

The Mayo report, although it is dated October 1976, was not presented to the people of Ottawa-Carleton until March 1977. It all came down with the fanfare this government has a reputation for. I recall the Treasurer coming down with the usual fanfare, to the Chateau Laurier, the ballroom, or one of the large rooms there -- the duke or the king comes down and invites all the vassals to get the good word on the Mayo report.

[11:30]

Subsequent to the presentation, with all the hoopla on the Mayo report, all local municipalities were invited to make submissions in response to the recommendations of the Mayo report -- and, I would hazard to think, at a great cost, if one considers the cost of each municipality drafting responses, utilizing individuals who are on the payroll of these various municipalities; many of the individuals, in fact, whom the Treasurer says are overpaid, in the statement he made just recently.

Anyway the responses were made by the various municipalities, and lo and behold the Treasurer comes back on May 8, 1978. Again an announcement is made with all the hoopla that goes with the regular travellings and the entourage of the Treasurer.

I have to tell you as an aside, this is really something. I don’t know if this goes on in every regional municipality. I suspect it does. But it is always somewhat annoying. The Treasurer comes in, everybody is invited, and they must come early because the place is full. I don’t know where they get all these people but, anyway, they fill up the room. Then the Treasurer comes walking in, just like royalty.

Mr. Nixon: Like the papal blessing.

Mr. Roy: It is just like the opening of the stream. The Treasurer comes walking in, goes up to the mike, then he states in a white paper -- that was on May 8, 1978 --

Mr. Martel: Straying a bit.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is the principle of the bill you are speaking about?

Mr. Roy: Bette, you wouldn’t know if it was the principle or if I was talking about something in hell.

Mr. Nixon: Did you hear what Stephen Lewis said about you yesterday?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes. He said I was terrifying. Whenever he comes in I am going to bring my Dracula teeth.

Mr. Conway: Go and see if you can find Bill 70, Bette.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I found it. You guys lost it.

Mr. Roy: He comes in and talks about the introduction of the white paper. But while the Treasurer is reading the content of his white paper, none of us, and there are whole stacks of the white paper, can look at it until he is finished speaking.

Mr. Nixon: Turning pages bothers him.

Mr. Roy: Everybody in the room sees the officials, the entourage, walking around with handfuls of these documents, and asks, “Can I have a copy?”

Mr. Nixon: No, no.

Mr. Roy: And they say, “No, the Treasurer has not finished speaking.”

Mr. Nixon: Keep your place.

Mr. Roy: Then he starts off with the opening statements on May 8, 1978.

Mr. Speaker: What principle of Bill 131 is the honourable member referring to?

An hon. member: It is about time.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I can explain to you, the bill is a result of submissions by the Mayo report, that I have before me, of October 1976.

Mr. Laughren: So was the rent control bill.

Mr. Roy: The Mayo report, Mr. Speaker, if I can refer it for your attention at page 102, talks about the western cities.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t have that before me. The only thing I have before me is Bill 131. It doesn’t mention any visit by the Treasurer, or any reference to the Mayo report.

Mr. G. Taylor: That is right, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: With respect, Mr. Speaker, surely if we accept your ruling then there is no sense in talking about how the legislation came into being. Surely, that is not the --

Mr. Speaker: That is not the intent of second reading of any bill.

Mr. Roy: I think it is, to show the --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think it is. I would ask you to confine your remarks to what is contained in the principle of Bill 131.

Mr. G. Taylor: Read the bill.

Mr. Roy: I will confine my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to the principle of the bill; and I think one of the principles of the bill is the minister’s statement on this legislation back on May 8, 1978.

Mr. Pope: Nice try.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer states at that time:

“I know that many of you have been anxiously awaiting the government’s response to review of local government in Ottawa-Carleton.” That is how he starts his statement. Then he goes on to talk about this amendment that he is going to bring forward. He says: “We have already announced certain recommendations, in particular, reference to the enlargement of Vanier and the creation of the western city.”

The western city is what we now have before us called Hazeldean-March. He stated: “It is important to single out the latter proposal which involved some large change politically and administratively. I would stress that the planning process in all areas affected should proceed as usual, and that this proposal not be a reason for delaying expenditures or plans now pending approval.” That’s what he said about the western city back on May 8, 1978.

At that time he stated as one of the recommendations in the white paper, on page five of the government proposal: “The government proposes that a new urban municipality be established in the west of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to include the whole of March township and as tightly as possible those portions of Goulbourn and Nepean townships which are presently included in the western growth area.” That’s the proposal. That’s the basis for the legislation we have here today. He stated that back on May 8, 1978.

The local municipalities are given one month to respond to the legislation. We’re expecting the legislation to come forward. We’ve been told for the last year that we’re going to see general legislation dealing with the whole of Ottawa-Carleton before the end of the spring session.

To our surprise, as late as June 13, we were assured by the parliamentary assistant when we were discussing the election of various regional chairmen that we were going to see general legislation for Ottawa-Carleton, not only dealing with the creation of a western city but dealing with other aspects. For instance, Rockcliffe, dealing with border control, and other recommendations of the Mayo report.

Unfortunately, we were told in this House on June 15 -- and I read from Hansard, page 3482: “When the government received the report from Dr. Mayo and Dr. William Archer on local government in the regions of Ottawa-Carleton and Niagara, it was clear that their recommendations were matters of intense concern.” It goes on: “While there is substantial agreement on some parts of the limited package presented in the white papers, other issues remain deeply contentious.

The government would prefer, therefore, that more time be allowed for local discussion of these issues before taking any legislative action.” We were told this on June 15, 1978. Exactly a week ago, we were told there would be no legislative action, on this matter.

It was obvious at that time what had happened, that the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) -- it must have been the member for Ottawa South because the members for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) and Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) were surprised by the decision, which was really a complete emasculation of the process the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) had set in motion. At that point I suspected it must have been him because the other two local members apparently had not been consulted; it was a surprise to them.

This was last Thursday. A few days later, last Tuesday, this legislation was brought forward and here we are dealing with Bill 131.

For a government that for so long has prided itself on giving leadership and knowing what it’s doing, this whole process has not only been wasteful because of the money spent, but the evidence before us is such that it’s clear the government really doesn’t know what it’s doing.

In spite of this, I think it’s important to point out that both opposition parties have had absolutely nothing to do with the delay of any of this. We’ve not seen any legislation. This is our first opportunity to look at legislation flowing from the Mayo report. We’ve had nothing whatsoever to do with any delay. We’ve been waiting for the legislation to come forward. We’ve been told it was going to come forward.

In spite of this the member for Carleton -- I really don’t know how to comment sometimes about some of the things he says -- the bill was introduced on June 20, but on that same day the member for Carleton had a reaction for the Ottawa Citizen, prior to the legislation even being introduced and prior to our being told about the legislation: “Handleman said that the fate of the legislation rests squarely on the shoulders of the opposition Liberals and New Democrats.”

Mr. Nixon: Oh, he’s a tiger back home.

Mr. Handleman: Don’t you control the House?

Mr. Roy: We’ve had nothing to do with this. Then he goes on to state:

“If the Liberals decide to bring in some screwy amendments, then it will die on the order paper.”

Mr. Nixon: Let’s test that out.

Mr. Pope: He must have known you were going to speak on it today.

An hon. member: Only your bills die, Roy, only your bills.

Ms. Gigantes: Typical of Tory terrorism.

Mr. Roy: He stated at that time: “If anybody creates a lot of flack about it, it could kill it.”

An hon. member: That’s before the bill was introduced.

Ms. Gigantes: You’re a bunch of terrorists.

Mr. Roy: That type of blackmail and intimidation borders on breaching the privileges of the members of this House. Even before a bill comes in we are told that if we do anything to it, if we even dare to look at some amendments to the legislation, the bill is going to be killed. There is a suggestion that somehow we have had something to do with the delay.

Ms. Gigantes: Shame on you, Sid.

Mr. Roy: As a member of this opposition, I will do what I think is best for the people I represent and I will not submit to that type of intimidation and blackmail on the part of that reactionary member.

Mr. Pope: That’s what he was describing in this newspaper article.

Mr. Roy: When we are trying to work together constructively in the best interests of the people we represent, we get that sort of reactionary approach from that member.

Mr. Kerrio: You’ve learned your lesson about that, haven’t you, Albert?

Mr. Roy: I give credit to the member for Carleton-Grenville to whom this is very important because it affects his riding. If it weren’t for members who are as moderate as he, it would be very difficult to work with the government, when it has members like the member for Carleton who keep anticipating what the opposition will do.

Mr. Swart: Somebody has to take over for Darcy.

Mr. Kerrio: Timbrell said he would drop a bill because of his own colleagues’ amendments.

Mr. Roy: Having made these comments, we do not think that we will delay this legislation. We will not filibuster this legislation, but we do have some concerns about the legislation. This legislation, which is brought in on this second-last day of the session, should really be sent to committee so that people from the area could make submissions on the legislation. There are some people who have concerns about this legislation.

Ms. Gigantes: You are going to support it, are you, Albert?

Mr. McClellan: It’s no use to send it to committee.

Mr. Roy: First of all, let’s look at the name of the city, Hazeldean-March. The only reason it is Hazeldean-March is because Hazeldean happens to be in the riding of the member for Carleton-Grenville and March is in the riding of the member for Carleton.

Mr. Epp: You know where you are, Sid, second.

Mr. Roy: I am even told that the member for Carleton was annoyed because it wasn’t called March-Hazeldean, or that the name of Handleman wasn’t somewhere in the legislation.

Mr. Conway: How about Handleman’s hamlet?

Mr. G. Taylor: Roy’s folly?

Mr. Roy: We know that

section 6 of the proposed bill authorizes a referendum on the name of the city.

Mr. Conway: Separatist city.

Mr. Roy: I guarantee you one thing. I hope that in the referendum the name of the member for Carleton is not one of the choices; then we’ll see what his popularity is like in that area.

We like the recommendations of the Mayo report which suggest the new western city be called Kanata. The name Kanata represents something that is, first of all, easier than Hazeldean-March. Secondly, it represents a concept in the Ottawa-Carleton area that is forward-looking for a new city. I know some members -- and I look at the Treasurer -- may not have any love for -- he is now the deputy minister of --

Mr. Handleman: He is on leave, watch it.

Mr. Roy: Is he on leave now? The former deputy minister of urban affairs -- what was his name? -- Teron. He started the development in that area called Kanata.

Ms. Gigantes: He was a good Liberal.

[11:45]

Mr. Roy: It was an interesting concept. Surely that is where the growth is going to take place, where the centre of the city will be. We think the city should be called Kanata. The people should be given an opportunity of changing the name if they so wish. We agree, of course, with the part of

section 6 which talks about a referendum on that basis. We like the recommendation of the Mayo report -- and I am reading at page 102 where it talks about what the name of the city should be -- “We suggest that this whole new urban development be called ‘Kanata’.”

The feeling I get from the people in the area is that we should start with the name Kanata. We should get away from trying to satisfy the ego of at least one member. I am cautious about the member for Carleton-Grenville, because he is too smooth about his process as compared to the tiger or reactionary from Carleton.

We think the name of the city should be Kanata. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, there’s a ring about the name Kanata; it has more zip, it’s more forward-looking. There’s something adventurous about the name Kanata. I suspect maybe that’s going too far for the member for Carleton.

We hope that this bill will go to committee of the whole House, when we will be proposing an amendment regarding the name of the new city, which the Treasurer described in his statement of June 20 as something that is forward-looking. He stated: “The government agrees with local views that it would be well to end uncertainties and establish the new municipality now.” Later in his statement, he said: “We are confident the city can become one of Ontario’s best-governed urban municipalities within its appropriate boundaries and scope of responsibility.”

We will be moving an amendment to change the name of the city from Hazeldean-March or March-Hazeldean, to something like Kanata.

Mr. Swart: Royville.

Mr. Roy: No, there is not this sort of folly on this side. The folly, the esprit de grandeur, comes from the other side. We don’t put forward ideas because they will create statues. We say to people, “Judge us on our actions here, not on puffing.”

Hon. B. Stephenson: They do. They’ve been judging you for 33 years.

Mr. Roy: Having said that, there are other problems with the bill.

Section 3 of the bill certainly is of concern to us because of the haste with which this legislation is proceeding in this Legislature and because of threats made by the member for Carleton, who says we had better not do anything drastic with this legislation or it’s going to die. There’s a feeling of panic. He spreads fear on all sides of the House.

Ms. Gigantes: He can’t scare you, Albert.

Mr. Roy: The fact is that we should never, when we are talking about a concept as interesting as the creation of a new city -- in fact it is the first time we have seen this since the days of John White. Remember John White? He used to come into the Legislature and say, “Tomorrow, there will be a new city some place else.”

All members have seen potentially new cities created here and there with different names. My colleagues know what I am talking about.

Mr. Nixon: The land he bought is still there, growing weeds.

Mr. Roy: The grandeur and the potential of some of these projects were never seen by us, but certainly the Treasurer of the day Mr. White saw them.

Here we are, creating a new city. We feel it deserves more work. It deserves representation of people in the local area.

Section 3 of the bill states that “the minister may by order do all such acts and things as may be necessary to establish wards and provide for the number of aldermen or councillors ... ” We don’t very much like the idea of giving the government that sort of wide, sweeping power. We think these things should be discussed in committee. We think the people of the area should have an opportunity to say where the dangers may be, where the problems are, to make certain recommendations. But we are not going to have that in this case.

What we are saying is that this bill was drafted hastily; we are going to create a new municipality and any problems we will take care of down the line. We think that, as I said earlier, it is typical of this government the way in which they bungled and bumbled on this particular issue, and we want to put on record our concern about that approach.

I suppose there are some other concerns. In

section 5, for example: “For the purposes of the Police Act, the city of Hazeldean-March” -- it will hopefully be called Kanata -- “shall be deemed to be a township municipality.” Again, there’s some concern about the haste of wanting to establish this. You know, it is a sort of Band-Aid, a sort of a knee-jerk approach to the establishment of something as forward looking as a new city.

There are concerns, Mr. Speaker, by some of the members or some of the locally-elected people, and of course these people will not have an opportunity to voice their concern, again, because of the haste of this legislation. For instance, I read in yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen where it states: “March council members have some doubts. Councillor Pat Carroll said that he was still unhappy about the ward system.”

Mr. Handleman: A Liberal candidate.

Mr. Roy: He states: “I am concerned about the establishment of more than one ward.”

Mr. G. Taylor: Your federal candidate in the next election.

Mr. Roy: But these people, Mr. Speaker, will not have an opportunity to voice that concern here. He states: “Should we have the amalgamated city at all costs? It bothers me that we really only have two days.”

Mr. Handleman: He supported the motion on a recorded vote. Why didn’t he dissent?

Mr. Roy: “It’s almost like the immaculate conception,” he says. And Sid should know something of that.

Mr. Nixon: Which area of that is he an expert in?

Mr. Roy: Of course the March reeve, Marion Wilkinson, said that she has been informed that if anything is added to the bill, it would not go through. That is part of the whole intimidation, part of the whole process.

Mr. Kerrio: Typical.

Mr. Nixon: That’s why he could not sit in the cabinet any more. They had to throw him out.

An hon. member: Wilkinson is president of Sid’s riding association, so he controls her.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I criticize many of the decisions made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province, and one of the decisions I did not criticize, of course, was the shift of the member for Carleton from somewhere to the left here to the right of where he is -- to his proper position. It shows exceedingly good sense.

But I want to restate again, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of the threats, in spite of the blackmail, we shall take a responsible approach on this side. It is minority government here and we shall do what we think is in the best interest of the people we represent and will not be subject to this kind of reactionary approach taken by the member for Carleton.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 131. It is a very simple bill, it calls for an amalgamation which has been suggested by study, by the Mayo report, and it has also been requested by the councils of March and Goulbourn townships. Those councils met recently and unanimously sent missives to concerned members from the area, and to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), requesting this change.

There are questions in the local area and I think they are being thrashed out well at the local level; each member of those councils had an opportunity to discuss the fine points of this legislation within the last week and they have given serious reflection to it, I am sure. Their conclusion has been unanimous: they want the legislation.

It makes sense in planning terms and it makes sense in terms of the needs of that area, and for those reasons we support it. We will ignore the kind of behaviour from the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) on this subject which has been less than graceful. We shall ignore the kind of blunderbuss approach that he has taken in advocating this legislation.

We shall also give credit where credit is due. I think the member for Carleton-Granville (Mr. Sterling) and the Treasurer have acted promptly and pretty sensitively on this issue. It was one of the most urgent matters that was left behind when the Treasurer was forced to delay House consideration of changes to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality Act. I think we should give credit that they have decided to go ahead on this matter.

I am informed by the Treasurer that he is also requesting a change in the procedure of the OMB so that a request made by Gloucester township council for an increase in the size of that council will be expedited. It also would have come up in the package of Ottawa-Carleton legislation. That request having gone to the OMB in January, and having been delayed at the request of the Treasurer, will now be speeded up by the OMB and we will see that council change, I hope in time for this year’s municipal election. For that too I am quite grateful, as I am sure the people of the Gloucester area will be.

Mr. Sargent: What is this?

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, we will ignore the huffings and puffings that are coming from the Liberal benches on this bill --

Mr. Nixon: We will ignore that in the light of the sweetness and sunshine coming from you.

Ms. Gigantes: -- and say very simply that we support this legislation and we are glad to see it coming at the end of this session in such a prompt and sensitive way. Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: It is indeed a great pleasure to support this bill. I think congratulations are due to the two principal councils involved in this bill, the township of Goulbourn and the township of March. Under this bill, the township of Goulbourn will be losing 40 per cent of their population and 35 per cent of their assessment. We do not often see in this modern day a municipality agreeing to give up jurisdiction in that situation. I think they are to be congratulated on their attitude in this matter.

March township will also be undertaking the massive task of planning for this new western city, which will immediately have approximately 15,000 people but will have an expected population sometime in the not too distant future of 75,000 to 100,000.

I believe this new city will better align the interests of the rural and urban interests of the people in these communities. In the area which is joining the western city there is an urgent demand for a higher level of servicing at this time. I understand both councils have a certain amount of concern at this time. We have heard concerns from the townships relating to a ward system; we have heard concerns from the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) regarding the name of the new municipality.

I only would comment that I thought the name that was chosen for this bill, while being very awkward, is significant in terms of showing that this is a marriage of two communities.

Mr. Kerrio: A shotgun marriage.

Mr. Roy: Considering the haste, it must have been a shotgun marriage.

Mr. Sterling: It is appropriate in recognizing this was supported by both communities to a great degree.

We don’t expect this name will continue past the referendum date. I would expect probably the name of Kanata would appear on a ballot, I would expect that the name Hazeldean would appear on the ballot and I expect that there might also be other suggestions for names. But the idea here was to allow citizens of the new municipality to have their opportunity to have input into the final name of their new city.

Mr. Laughren: How about Sterlingville?

[12:00]

Mr. Sterling: That would be a very good name.

I believe that the joining of these municipalities was logical, that it was inevitable and that the time for bringing this forward is now. Contrary to some of the discussion that has gone on here today, there has been a great deal of discussions going on among the different municipalities for some period of time. This decision has not been made over the past few days or the past two weeks. The councils have had full discussion on the pros and cons of this matter. In fact they have bad the benefit of listening to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and his parliamentary assistant in terms of the financial repercussions it would have for each of these new communities.

On this day I celebrate 15 years of a most happy partnership with my wife Janet.

Mr. Roy: Today? Hear, hear.

Mr. Swart: Let’s hear her version.

Mr. Sterling: I hope that this date shall mark the beginning of an equally successful marriage of these three new communities. Thank you very much.

Mr. Cassidy: What is she celebrating?

Mr. Conway: I shall, like the members participating in this debate, endeavour to be reasonably brief. I rise to support in principle Bill 131, but I do so with the caveats that were introduced by my colleague from Ottawa East. I think without question the method by means of which this Parliament has been presented with this legislation is nothing short of an abuse of this Legislature.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh come on.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Conway: Whether or not it was calculated, I will not say at this time. It represents an approach to this Legislature which I am not prepared to accept. Notwithstanding the problems that have entered into the implementation of the Mayo report, I find it repugnant in the extreme to read the Ottawa Citizen of a few days ago and to be told by my good friend from Carleton that this bill will succumb to closure. While the member for Carleton is given, I know, to almost incessant reactionary points of view, I appreciate the vigour with which he espouses many of these points of view.

But I will not be told by him nor any member of the government that this bill really must succumb to a conventional closure as they would present it. I just can’t accept that.

Mr. Roy: Watch him; do what you’re told.

Mr. Conway: I recommend to him and to his friend the Treasurer a speech given by the Hon. Robert L. Stanfleld about the end of responsible parliamentary government. In its own way Bill 131 is all that Stanfield is talking about.

I find it interesting as well to listen to my colleague from Carleton East, and the sweetness and reason with which she greets both the Treasurer and Bill 131. Like my colleague from Ottawa East, I was trying to figure out what is the basis for this unique McKeough-Gigantes concordat. It dawns on me that the basis for it is their exclusive elitism, as it relates to the Rockcliffe issue. I am not surprised that the member for Carleton East succumbs to the elitist blandishments of the Treasurer in this regard, knowing what we know about her peculiar democratic socialism as it relates to the matters of the Rockcliffe --

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: Sit down. Take it like everybody else; come on.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton East has a point of privilege.

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, I believe I do, Mr. Speaker. It has been implied to this Legislature by the member for Renfrew North that the Treasurer and I have had discussions on Rockcliffe. This is not true.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North may continue.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, speaking briefly to the point --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Does the Treasurer have a point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remark just made by the member for Carleton East. Both she and I understand the word concordat, which the poor old member for Renfrew North just doesn’t have any clues about whatsoever, which is his loss.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not concordats, it’s concord that you understand.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I think that if both the member for Chatham-Kent and the member for Carleton East wish to read the record, there was no suggestion they had had a dialogue. I am simply drawing my own conclusions for the basis of this concordat.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You wouldn’t understand.

Mr. Conway: I just want it put on the record, because it --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s just so much papal bull.

Mr. Conway: -- relates to the principle of Bill 131, about which the member for Carleton East has some very peculiar views, not all of them unelitist when it relates to municipal reorganization in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Mr. Laughren: Unelitist; you like to hear yourself talk, don’t you, Stan?

Mr. Conway: I want to stand here today and offer my explanation as to why she could be so reasonable with the Treasurer. In other areas of the white paper and the Mayo report, and I make specific reference to Rockcliffe, their views are quite similar; and I must say, with respect to Bill 131, I am not surprised.

Ms. Gigantes: They are not the same at all.

Mr. Roy: It was the mot douce exchange here this afternoon -- sweet things.

Mr. Conway: I have to say that in the last few days I have been approached by a considerable number of people in the area of Hazeldean-March --

Mr. McClellan: Name names.

Mr. Conway: It sounds like something from the Richard Nixon White House.

Mr. Walker: That is a non-known considerable number.

Mr. Roy: They are not socialists, don’t worry about it.

Mr. Conway: The people who have spoken to me --

Mr. McClellan: Who are these people?

Mr. Conway: The people who have spoken to me have expressed support in principle for the bill, but they have expressed a very considerable objection to the methodology. The people who have spoken to me are concerned.

Mr. Walker: How many have spoken to you?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: The people who have spoken to me are not happy about the ward system. I am not afraid to say my good friend Pat Carroll, my old high school principal now in one of the involved townships, has drawn to my attention that he feels a personal difficulty with the ward system.

Mr. Sterling: Support the resolution.

Mr. Conway: He has also, like others involved, drawn to my attention very serious concerns about what they believe to be lasting assessment problems.

Mr. Walker: How many others?

Mr. Conway: They were prepared to accept, some weeks ago, the idea of the new western city, believing then that the Treasurer not only intended to bring forward legislation to effect municipal reorganization in Ottawa-Carleton but also to effect some measure of property tax reform.

Mr. Roy: We have been promised a lot of things by the Treasurer.

Mr. Conway: Now some of those rules have changed, or so we are told. Those problems, the problems of assessment, the problems of the ward system, are legitimate.

I realize the agreement entered into, in whatever way, by the democratic socialists and the McKeough Tories will give this bill passage through the House, and that I am quite prepared to support.

Ms. Gigantes: You are going to support it?

Mr. Conway: I am not a person to tinker with those kinds of relationships, but as one member, as a backbencher who may very well be in need of a holiday, I just find it unacceptable to --

Ms. Gigantes: A permanent holiday.

Mr. McClellan: Vote against it.

Mr. Conway: -- have the Treasurer of this province lead this Legislature, and indeed many of the municipalities involved, to the point that we were going to have a bill we could discuss during the last few weeks of the Legislature --

Mr. McClellan: Vote against it if you don’t like it. Don’t just stand --

Mr. Conway: -- and then be faced with this ultimatum in the last days, indeed in the last hours. I am not prepared to accept that kind of abusive approach to a Parliament which I respect in its traditions and privileges.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate the chance to speak briefly on this bill to create the --

Mr. Kerrio: Nice to have you back, Mike.

Mr. Cassidy: What is that? Yes, I am just back from Quebec. I flew in, as a matter of fact, expressly for this.

I notice with concern the bad grace with which the Liberal Party has been approaching this particular bill, despite the decision to support it. I do have the feeling the reason is simply that when Carleton-Grenville is finally wrested from the hands of the Conservative Party --

Mr. Kerrio: You are an expert on everything.

Mr. Cassidy: -- in whose grasp it has lain for far too many years, it will be in the hands of the New Democrats and not of the Liberals.

Mr. Conway: That’s the time when hell freezes over.

Mr. Cassidy: I have heard predictions like that by parties that very quickly thereafter disappeared into oblivion.

Mr. Conway: Hey Mike, I liked the picture in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday; age 10, precocious as ever.

Mr. Epp: What’s your opinion on rent review, Mike?

Mr. Kennedy: What is yours?

Mr. Cassidy: I think this bill is a healthy and constructive use of the Legislature to correct an oversight which the Treasurer was guilty of, a problem that existed in the Ottawa area because of the delays in implementing --

Mr. Conway: Overpackaged, centralizing dictator.

Mr. Mackenzie: When are you going to realize you’re out of school, Sean?

Mr. Cassidy: Could you repeat that for the record?

Mr. Nixon: Well it is in the record.

Mr. Conway: When are you going to realize you are out of the union hall?

Mr. Mackenzie: I don’t want to.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Would the member for Ottawa-Centre please continue and ignore the interjections?

Mr. Cassidy: It has been made necessary because of the sluggish and uncreative way in which the Treasurer has been approaching the whole question of municipal reform, and I suppose I should put on the record that while we welcome this particular bill -- will you stop yapping?

Mr. Roy: Now they are yapping behind you; they have no respect.

Mr. Cassidy: While we welcome this particular bill, the decision of the Treasurer not to come to grips with promises he made earlier, as for example in relation to the board of control in Ottawa and its abolition, leaves us filled with some regret and the wish that we could have had a chance to have had a larger bill and put those amendments if the government itself was not prepared to carry out commitments it had made before.

Mr. Handleman: What about Rockcliffe?

Mr. Roy: How about Rockcliffe, Mike? How do you feel about that? Tell us your views.

Mr. Cassidy: The bill itself is a simple bill, a straightforward bill. With the anticipated growth in the western community, which has been foreseen as part of the planning in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, it was obvious that that would not be possible to be carried out efficiently and well and sensitively and responsibly if the area to be developed was going to be under three municipal jurisdictions.

In the Ottawa-Carleton area generally, we simply could not afford to wait for another further period of two years while essential planning that needed to be done for that particular area was allowed to be delayed because of the lack of adequate municipal structure.

Mr. Roy: What about your position on Rockcliffe?

Mr. Cassidy: I know a number of people who are involved in local government in that particular area. I have a good deal of respect of them and I hope that with the base that is being created by this particular bill they will be able to go through the difficult period of bringing the municipalities and the sections of municipalities together; of beginning to do the planning that is necessary and of beginning to tie together three separate areas that have grown independently, in order to make of them truly a community which commands local loyalty and a community which will grow to play its role as part of the fabric of the area of Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Roy: My God, what a pussycat. We know who the real opposition is around here.

Mr. Cassidy: With that, I would say, as has already been indicated by the member for Carleton East, we were grateful for the chance to be consulted about this and to join in the view that the Legislature would, in fact, do a service in Ottawa-Carleton by seeing this bill had easy passage, even if at the same time we regret the fact that some of the other things that could have been done --

Mr. Roy: Like Rockcliffe.

Mr. Cassidy: -- in Ottawa-Carleton as a result of the Mayo report are simply issues that have been dumped by the Treasurer and by his government as a whole.

Mr. Roy: Ah, now we know who the real opposition is.

Mr. Handleman: I want to support Bill 131 with the moderation for which I have been praised by spokesmen from all sides of the House.

Ms. Gigantes: Says you.

Mr. Handleman: I regret the fact that members opposite feel there was a blunderbuss approach.

Mr. Conway: Have you read Tuesday’s Citizen?

Mr. Handleman: There is such a thing as a calendar. Today is Thursday, tomorrow is Friday, next week is Monday. I understand certain agreements have been reached about when the session ends and obviously we are not going to be coming back in the fall to give third reading to a bill that is being amended in the meantime. However, I am pleased to hear my friend from Carleton East will support it.

Ms. Gigantes: In spite of you.

Mr. Handleman: I am glad she was able to find it in her heart to ignore her personal feelings on the way I have dealt with this bill.

Mr. Kennedy: There is no logic in her statement.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to point out first of all to the member for Ottawa East that this matter didn’t begin with Mayo. An amalgamation took place in what was formerly the constituency of Carleton.

Mr. Roy: You are out of order.

Mr. Handleman: In 1973 there were three new municipalities formed and at that time the Hon. John White, who was praised by the member, announced that there would be a new urban municipality in the western part of Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr. Roy: What did he call it?

Mr. Handleman: He didn’t call it anything.

Mr. Roy: That’s typical. You didn’t either.

Mr. Handleman: The three municipalities that were formed in 1974 chose their own names. They didn’t choose names that I might have preferred, or the member for Ottawa-East might have preferred. They chose names of their own choice.

Mr. Roy: Well why did you call it Hazeldean-March?

Mr. Handleman: I refer to Rideau, which I would have liked to have seen called Richmond. I refer to West Carleton, which I would have preferred to see called Carp.

Mr. Conway: Get it right, Sidney. It is “Caarrp” -- my beloved Ottawa Valley. Back to university.

Mr. Handleman: I am sorry, Rideau would have been North Gore and Goulbourn would have been Richmond. In any case, they chose names that were satisfactory to the people there. The principle of self-determination, I suppose, becomes very difficult for the member for Ottawa East who would like to tell them what they should be called. I happen to share his views on the name Kanata.

[12:15]

Mr. Conway: Beer in the ballpark, Sidney.

Mr. Handleman: I will not lobby for it, but I hope it will be on the ballot and I hope it will be successful. I have some admiration for Mr. Teron’s technical expertise as an urban developer; and I won’t mention any other aspect of his views that I don’t happen to share.

Mr. Speaker, nobody has mentioned the fact that a good portion of the township of Nepean, the Bridlewood

section of Nepean, will come into this new municipality. I have heard too from people who aren’t at all happy about this thing. It’s very easy, I suppose, to say to them: “We will make sure that your views are known;” and I have made them known to the Treasurer, as I am sure all members who have heard these views have.

Mr. Roy: Yes, so much for the democratic process.

Mr. Handleman: In the community of Bridlewood one year ago or just a little bit more than a year ago, we were out on the hustings and there was nobody in Bridlewood.

Mr. Conway: Yes, you put it there, Sidney.

Mr. Handleman: The western city was known long before the first person moved into Bridlewood, which is why the township of Nepean council has acquiesced in this loss of a portion of their territory. There is no territorial jealousy in this.

Mr. Roy: You didn’t like that last election, eh?

Mr. Handleman: So I am quite happy to say that all councils have unanimously supported what the Treasurer is doing, by recorded vote as late as last Monday, long after the market value assessment and tax reform were off the books. I don’t understand why councillor Carroll --

Mr. Roy: Were you surprised by the Treasurer’s statement on Tuesday?

Mr. Handleman: -- who has these reservations, didn’t express them at that time. He had an opportunity to do so. But, of course, politics being what they are and knowing that the present member for that area feels the same way about it -- I must say that this is the feeling that Paul Dick shares with Pat Carroll and it will be great to watch them campaign at some time and try to show different views.

Mr. Conway: We’re not going to have a federal election?

Mr. Handleman: They both agree that the name Kanata should be chosen; I agree with them and I hope the people will do that, but I will leave it up to them. The question of assessment we have been discussing for three years.

Mr. Roy: That is right, and doing nothing about it.

Mr. Conway: Three years? Try 10.

Mr. Handleman: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) is always prepared -- and I am sure he will let the councillors know -- he is prepared to undertake the kind of financial impact study required, and to let them know what the situation is.

But they don’t have the information and neither do members opposite. They don’t know what the assessment’s going to be in the three different areas, they haven’t got the slightest clue. They are concerned about it; we are all concerned. We have to know.

Mr. Conway: McKeough’s first priority.

Mr. Handleman: I think the minister will do that. There has been some concern expressed about Hydro restructuring, because Bridlewood is now served by Nepean Municipal Hydro Commission while the other two areas are served by Ontario Hydro. There will be some problems and I expect the Minister Of Energy (Mr. Baetz) to engage in a Hydro restructuring study, which hasn’t been done for the area. The regional government has turned it down for the region, they have made that decision. The people in this new area want it and I think they should get it. I am sure the minister will agree to that.

As far as the ward system is concerned, again there is no unanimity on the ward system. I quite agree with what Mr. Carroll said. There are other councillors in other parts of this new municipality who want the ward system, and after all the ward system is designed to protect the minority. I think their views should be heard and the legislation does not preclude the idea of one ward. It does leave it to the minister after he’s heard from all the councillors.

Mr. Conway: A peculiar interest in minority rights over there.

Mr. Handleman: And he can do it. I am not suggesting that is what will be decided, but the possibility is there, and I think --

Mr. Roy: Avoid the Legislature, eh, Sid?

Mr. Handleman: -- this is the kind of legislation that we should have more of where you can have discussion before final decisions are made; and that’s exactly what will happen. I have heard from the heads of municipalities as recently as this morning --

Mr. Roy: Don’t bring in amendments though.

Mr. Conway: No amendments.

Mr. Handleman: -- and they have all said the same thing: that if individual councillors are now departing from the unanimous recorded votes of their councils on Monday night, they are doing it completely on their own for whatever purposes they have in mind. But the councils agreed to this bill with no changes, and I hope that that’s the way it will go through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this process which we began back in 1973 is finally coming before the House. I quite agree it has taken a long time, but when somebody says that we should have more months of consultation and delegation -- and it happens not to have been in the riding of the member for Ottawa East -- I say this thing has been discussed, discussed and discussed.

Mr. Conway: Stanfield is right, executive dictatorship.

Mr. Handleman: There has to come a time when the legislation is presented and passed. More public discussion will simply delay what we should have been doing two years ago; now that the councils have realized this I think we should go along with their wishes. That’s what local autonomy is all about and I am prepared to support the bill with no amendments.

Mr. Epp: What the member for Carleton says is interesting, that they have been consulting on this since 1973, that there has been a lot of talk about it and that all of a sudden we find that a bill has been brought in in the last -- what? it was only printed yesterday or today, so they’ve had about five years to print it and they printed it in the last day or two.

Mr. Conway: A deathbed confession.

Mr. Epp: Nevertheless, it is interesting to get up and speak on this bill and to support it in principle. What it does is bring in the township of March and parts of the townships of Nepean and Goulbourn. Although this was recommended in the Mayo report and, I suppose, supported in part by the government, nevertheless it was never brought in as part of what should have been a much larger bill dealing with the whole region, particularly after spending a lot of money, about $250,000, as the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has indicated.

I would like to get some clarification from the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) some time during this debate as to the amount of money he is going to give to the various municipalities. Questions have been raised with me by members of the municipalities to find out how much money is going to go to Goulbourn and how much money is going to go to the new city in transitional payments and to the Stittsville sewer project. Maybe he can give us some clarification on some of those matters.

When we talk about bringing this in and about the consultation process, and consider the great emphasis that has been placed on regional governments by the present government, certainly the regional government was not consulted as to whether it agreed with bringing this bill in at this time in isolation of any other amendments that could have been introduced but were not introduced.

Mr. Handleman: I thought they were going to eliminate Goulbourn completely.

Mr. Epp: Is that your suggestion?

Mr. Handleman: That is what they wanted to do: eliminate Goulbourn -- get rid of the rural people. They passed a resolution.

Mr. Conway: That has never stopped you before.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. Epp: We will be supporting this bill and, when it goes to committee, we hope we’ll get some clarification of a number of points. Certainly the name of Hazeldean-March, which has been designated by the Treasurer, is not acceptable. As my colleague indicated earlier, we will propose an amendment to change the name to Kanata, which obviously would be much more acceptable to the people in that area.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. You said it yourself.

Mr. Epp: The shock of the people in that area to the name that was proposed was such that they wondered whether the Treasurer was out to lunch when he proposed this name. Obviously there are other names that would be much more acceptable, and I’m sure Kanata would be that name.

Mr. Sterling: There are 4,000 voters in Glencairn who don’t agree.

Mr. Handleman: Ask the people in Glencairn.

Mr. Roy: We’re just trying to get a proper name.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, obviously I rise to speak in support of this bill, as I share the views of my colleagues in the caucus from the Carleton area. I really rise to say to my friends on the right that I think, first of all, they should support the bill, and perhaps they should forget about the amendment which they say they are going to propose at this time.

Mr. Roy: No, we go the same way on second and third reading, we don’t switch.

Mr. Swart: I suspect they’re right in saying that they’re going to vote for the bill. All their comment has been against it; so they will likely vote for it, as they did in the case of regional chairmen: they talked in favour of it and then voted against it.

Mr. Roy: Just like you talk against something on second reading and then bring forward an amendment in committee.

Mr. Swart: I just say to them that they shouldn’t react too strongly to the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman), to the point of moving amendments to this bill. I know that he rather annoys them, but I should point out to them that it could be worse.

Mr. Conway: Unlike you, he is always here to vote for his amendments.

Mr. Swart: They could have him in their caucus; think of the problem they would have then. It would be like the problem they have over there.

Mr. Nixon: There’s no chance of you being in it. You’re in bed with them. We’re still working on Ellis Morningstar.

Mr. Swart: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer is here today. This is the first time the Treasurer has been in this House for a municipal bill. I doubt if it’s because he thinks the bill is quite that important; it’s just that he knew that the member for Carleton would be here. After the way the member for Carleton has broken with their caucus, whether it was over rent review or the French-language issue, I think the Treasurer is here just to make sure things are safe over there for the government.

Mr. Roy: He has only changed his mind three times in the last month.

Mr. Conway: What is his position on the boycott bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Swart: Of course I will. If you consider I got away from it, I will return to it.

Granted it is late in the day bringing in this bill --

Mr. Roy: No, it is only 25 after 12.

Mr. Swart: -- and we like to have the time to deal adequately with it. First of all, we would like to have a composite bill dealing with the whole area down there. Obviously, as I suppose our friends on the right would, we would like to have had this bill in sooner, but let me point out to my friends on the right that if it’s not dealt with at this time it delays the formation of that city for two years.

I suspect there’s a lot of merit now in forming that city at this time to let them get on with the job of melding those municipalities together and planning for the new city. There are many other things in the report of the Ottawa-Carleton region that can be brought in --

Mr. Conway: You have noticed.

Mr. Swart: -- that is amendments which can be brought in to be effective at another time.

Mr. Conway: Now you sound like Mackenzie King.

Mr. Swart: Oh yes, it can be effective a year from now. This particular part of the report has to be dealt with now or wait for two years. So I think there is merit in dealing with it at this time. I too commend the Treasurer for bringing it in. In fact, I am delighted to see him doing what the people want.

Mr. Conway: Same old gang.

Mr. Roy: You should be in trouble, Darcy, having Mel Swart and Evelyn Gigantes coming at you.

Mr. Swart: You know this year, Mr. Speaker, whether it’s in the Hamilton-Wentworth or whether it’s in Northumberland county, we have seen, it appears, a change on the part of the Treasurer so that he wants to do what the people in the area want done.

Ms. Gigantes: He is repentant.

Mr. Swart: Surely, I would not want to interfere with that great transition in the character and the attitude of the Treasurer of this province.

I’m not going to take any greater length of time. May I just ask the Treasurer --

Mr. Conway: No principles at all Mel, sold out for a song.

Mr. Swart: -- when he rises to speak on this, will he tell us whether the amount of money which is going to be provided during the transition period is the normal amount under the regulations? Whether there are any special considerations being given there? If so, why? I want to make it clear I am not against special consideration if there is reason, but I would like to know if it is the normal sort of transition grant and changes. There is nothing in this bill about determining whether part of the township of March will be annexed to West Carleton.

Has the Treasurer given anything in writing to the municipalities to the effect that consideration will be given to that, which appears to be the wish at this time, although that may be changed?

I know there are normal procedures in the municipal act for them to use, but I wonder if he has given them anything in writing that at least the provincial government would not step in to object to any changes they might want to make with regard to March. Having said that, we will support the bill. Quite frankly, we support it with some enthusiasm.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think there is an amendment to be proposed, I gather, although I will do my best to talk the Liberal Party out of their indiscretion in that area.

It seems to me the bill will be going into committee of the whole and the questions that have been raised perhaps can best be answered there

section by section. So at this moment, I will simply thank the member for Carleton East, and associate myself with her graceful remarks.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole.

[12:30]

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved second reading of Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

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

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: The minister has indicated that he feels it is necessary, if not essential, that the bill proceed and not be postponed until the fall, since it deals with the establishment of the bag limits in certain areas of hunting -- presumably he is the expert in that connection.

I feel we owe him a favour in some connection, but I cannot quite recall. But on his say-so, then certainly, we have no objection to the bill and we support it in principle.

Mr. Foulds: I rise on behalf of my party and after careful and thorough scrutiny, we support the bill. As I understand it, it gives the minister the right, through regulation, to devise what is called a selective buck quota in terms of the animals or game birds that m