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

June 29, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L005 - Wed 29 Jun 1977 / Mer 29 jun 1977

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANNING ACT REVIEW

REFORESTATION

CCAS DISPUTE

MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

NURSES’ DISPUTE

LICENCE FEES

INDUSTRY RELOCATION

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

HYDRO CONTRACTS

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

STELCO EMISSIONS

RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

INCO EMISSIONS

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS

RADIATION HAZARD

TOURISM

FISH LEVELS

REPORT EVALUATION

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

REPORTS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

COMMODITY FUTURES ACT

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

MOTIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Nixon: No ministry. They’re all in the back row. There are going to be some quick promotions, boys.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANNING ACT REVIEW

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a question of the government House leader, Mr. Speaker, in what I should like to be the recorded absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry); that is, in view of the fact that the Comay report on The Planning Act has confirmed so many of the criticisms this party has made regarding the delays and the high costs that result from these current planning processes, can he explain why his government does not seem to intend to take immediate action to expedite the subdivision approval process, curtail the powers of the Ontario Municipal Board and eliminate unnecessary OMB hearings?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that matter should be referred to the Minister of Housing. May I say, however, while I am on my feet, the Premier is at the Destiny Canada conference this afternoon to fulfil some responsibilities which he had agreed to some time ago. The Attorney General is in Ottawa with the Minister of Justice at a conference of the Attorneys General. I don’t know but I expect the Minister of Housing will be here before the end of the question period, and perhaps that question could be directed to him at that time.

Mr. Speaker: I will give the hon. Leader of the Opposition a chance to place his question again if the minister shows.

REFORESTATION

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, who has just joined us.

I wonder if the minister can clarify and provide a little more detail regarding the famous promise in the charter, the promise to replace at least two trees for every one harvested. I am wondering if the minister is going to explain to us exactly how that is going to be accomplished in view of his previous statement -- and I quote -- “I thought we knew how to replant trees. We don’t,” and in view of the government’s own report called Forest Management in Ontario 1976, which states: “It is a common myth that every acre logged should be regenerated; ideally this may be desirable but the reality is that in an extensively forested area such as Ontario it is not economically feasible.”

Can he explain who was contacted with regard to this two-for-one plan and exactly how is it going to be accomplished?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a good merchandising gimmick.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is not a merchandising gimmick.

Mr. Nixon: It is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: As a matter of fact, two for one is perhaps a conservative estimate of the number of trees --

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: Is it ever conservative in view of your record!

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any case it is a conservative fact now.

An hon. member: That means it is not a fact.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When one cuts mature forests, obviously the spacing and size of the trees is such that there is a lot of room once you have cleared the forest out for the planting of a lot more trees than you cut. It is as simple as that. When we plant open country, open fields properly, the normal planting procedure I am told is one tree every six feet in a grid system. Throughout the growth of those trees you would harvest or cull, whatever you want to call it, a goodly number of the smaller trees as they grow, to permit the larger trees or the growth of trees to a more mature state.

I forget the exact number but it is something like 1,500 trees per acre, I believe, that a six-by-six planting pattern will give you.

Mr. Lewis: Be careful.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member can work it out if he wants to: 46,000 square feet divided by 36. That is not bad. I think it is about 1,270 trees per acre that one would plant.

Mr. Reid: Depending on the species.

Hon. F. S. Miller: One would not harvest at maturity anywhere near that, but you would cut at intervals -- I believe 25 years is the first cut if I am not wrong. Is it not?

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on -- 25 years! Forty to 60.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I mean for the first thinning of the trees.

Mr. Reid: You don’t do any thinning. That’s the problem.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was looking across at the member for Rainy River, who knows all about trees.

Mr. Reid: They all voted, though.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s the only way you would get in. Young saplings vote for you.

Mr. Reid: Some older ones too.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You said it. However, the fact remains that in serious reforestation or regeneration obviously you would be planting more seedlings than you were harvesting as mature trees.

The second part to which the member referred was the question of all acres being planted and the report saying that some weren’t suitable for replanting. That is true. The fact is they probably weren’t suitable for cutting if they weren’t suitable for replanting. This is where management plans will come into effect and in some cases stop the cutting on certain fragile soils that should not be regenerated.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Since it seems to be a recent inspiration, which the minister did not share with the House prior to the dissolution of the last Legislature, to plant two trees for every one, at the time when he was saying he didn’t know how to plant them, how much money is the government planning to spend on this marvellous new reforestation program, and when can we expect to see the budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, you very selectively chose some of my comment. You too must have just got The Forest Scene.

Mr. Nixon: You didn’t say these things?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sure, I did. But they are all there, along with your interjections and some comments by the member for Rainy River and a few other people.

Mr. Nixon: Well, they should all be there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was printed this week in The Forest Scene that I just got, and which you have got.

Mr. Roy: You are always limited in the question period, you know.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said that many people shared some of the beliefs I had about the planting of trees before I became minister. Many people simply believed that all you had to do was take a lot of young people and put them out in the bush with equipment and you would have a massive regeneration program. But, in fact, that --

Mr. S. Smith: You are saying two for one. I didn’t suggest it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m just pointing out that I said these things earlier.

Mrs. Campbell: When you did know what you were talking about.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh no. With great respect, I always know what I’m talking about, even if I can’t impart it to some of you who can’t understand what I’m talking about.

Mr. Nixon: Back to the two for one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it wasn’t the two-for-one bit --

Mr. S. Smith: How much money will be spent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We will spend whatever money is required. One of the reasons I was delighted to see the statement in the charter that we would, in fact, put as a priority --

Mr. Lewis: It was a surprise to you, too?

Mr. Gaunt: You were surprised to see it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I saw the charter when you did. But I had an input into it, which was different.

Mr. Reid: It must have been as Minister of Health because --

Mr. S. Smith: You took his picture.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister just answer this one question, please, not the interjections?

Mr. Sweeney: There aren’t enough ministers there. He has got to fill up the time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You’ve misled me; you’ve misguided me at this point. I’m being flustered.

Interjection.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We will be putting the money in as we create the ability to produce the seedlings, produce the seed, have the nurseries built up, so that we can increase our overall regeneration policy. Those things will be done. I would estimate that the figure of $65 million a year is reasonable. I think that is one of the figures in the report. It will probably take us two or three years to be spending at that rate. But as far as I am concerned, our highest priority is to improve the overall regeneration of the forests of Ontario beyond their already quite good levels.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow one more supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary from the member for Rainy River --

Mr. Speaker: Well, we’ve spent almost 10 minutes now with the interjections. It seems to me there were quite a few answered, and wrongly, of course. But it was a rather relaxing question. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: What has happened to the minister’s announced intention of turning back to various private companies the actual forest regeneration; with whom have the negotiations been completed; and when will we hear precisely what he intends?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s safe to say that the negotiations have not been completed with any company. It is also safe to say that we appointed the executive director of forests to that specific task. He is to work on it from now till whatever date the task is complete -- some 18 months we would expect it to take -- to work out the changes in charges the ministry makes, to work out the details and the standards for the agreements with these companies as to how they should go about the regeneration programs.

Not all lands in the province will be handled by private regeneration. I tried to make that clear during the election campaign.

There are those forests which the province will have to maintain the regeneration on, because we want to have licences available for smaller operators in the province. But we feel that major companies will be involved in the regeneration process in the future. Details following the suggestions of Armson are being worked upon right now by Mr. Lockwood.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve now spent 10 minutes on this. The first question the Leader of the Opposition had really wasn’t a proper question because there was nobody to ask it of, we are going to give him the opportunity to come back at it later. I think we’ve spent enough time on this question. We can come back to this question later. I think we will go to the hon. member for Scarborough West with his first two questions.

Mr. Roy: We haven’t even had one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, there were several interjections which were answered.

Mr. Deans: Sit down. The Speaker is in charge here.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think in order to keep the question period going along and to give everyone an opportunity to ask questions, we have spent enough time on the first lead-off question.

CCAS DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour the following question: What is the ministry doing in the very unhappy strike that is now occurring between Focus, the organization representing social workers and child-care workers at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, and the society?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware that there have been active communications between the staff of the ministry and both parties in an attempt to get both parties back together. I am not aware that there is any meeting right at the moment as a matter of fact, but I shall check on that and let the member know.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister indicate whether in fact it is valid that a senior member of the ministry has been informed that management in truth did unilaterally change the term of the contract, and that in fact this is a fairly clear-cut case of management violation of a contract originally agreed upon, and that therefore it would be a very easy labour dispute to bring to a conclusion and that that is now understood within the ministry with those involved in the strike conciliation process?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge that is not known as fact within the ministry at this time. The first information that we had was that indeed this had been an error, that each party thought they were signing the correct document but the documents were not dated the same. If there has been new information about this in the last day or so I have not heard it. That I shall explore as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Is it not usual practice that when a new agreement is signed it is dated as of the date of the expiry of the old agreement, and is that not the understanding that is held by some of the conciliation or mediation services people?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, that is generally so; it is not universally so.

MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Energy if I may: Can he indicate to the House where he now stands on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, after the Berger commission has made its report?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The ministry did not take a position, contrary to some of the information that might have flowed from some of the member’s supporters, in connection with support of a pipeline. We had a representative there, but not in regard to or in terms of supporting a particular pipeline or location.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t really want to get into this, but is the minister denying that he tabled in the Legislature a document which asked for the building of that pipeline as quickly as possible, subject to whatever environmental matters were involved? The minister is denying that he tabled that and it was contained in a recommendation?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That may have been the member’s

interpretation of that document, but it certainly wasn’t my intention nor

interpretation to support any particular --

Mr. Lewis: Did the minister read the document before he tabled it?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Absolutely. Would the member like to quote it and I’d be happy to debate it with him?

Mr. Lewis: I haven’t got it with me.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Please do and I’ll explain it to him.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Is it the minister’s intention to reintroduce his rate-raising bill with respect to pipelines of this nature? The second part of my supplementary is, with the introduction of that bill, was support of that pipeline at that point not implicit in there?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No. I gather there was some support in the member’s party and other parties in regard to that particular proposal. Frankly, I see no urgency to do that. I’m particularly concerned about feeding through costs to the consumers, costs that would reflect an investment in pipelines. There are other considerations and I have no present plans to bring in such legislation at this time.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Since the construction of the pipeline -- whatever the route will be -- will drain most of the money which is needed for investment in southern Canada, and since it is known that the cost of gas at city gate will be much higher in Ontario with the resulting loss of several thousand jobs, is this government prepared to oppose the pipeline and if not, why?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No, I think the hon. member’s assumption is absolutely erroneous. He is assuming that the increase in oil and gas prices is being effected by the oil-producing provinces and the federal government in order to finance pipelines, which is --

Mr. Lewis: That is right. That is the rationale, and if you don’t understand that you should not be in your job.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- which is not correct.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I have read all of the member’s campaign literature and all of his dissertations on it and --

Mr. Lewis: There is no other rationale.

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you resign?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- that’s not so.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t know what is in your documents and you don’t know your own rationale.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The member doesn’t.

Mr. Speaker: All right. A final supplementary.

Mr. Reed: Does this mean now that the ministry, in the course of about four months, has done a complete flip-flop on this issue of the pipeline?

Mr. Lewis: Completely. Totally. A total about-face.

Mr. Reed: Does this mean that there has been a complete reversal of the position of the Ministry of Energy regarding the construction of this pipeline?

Mr. Lewis: Of course. Totally.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there has been no reversal of the position of the Ministry of Energy.

Mr. Breaugh: This is called a twirl, not a reversal.

Mr. Foulds: It never had a position.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: What I advocated in that particular document was the need to put transportation systems into place --

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- in order to bring frontier gas, for example, and oil to market. That doesn’t indicate --

Mr. Peterson: Which frontier are you talking about?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Just a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That doesn’t indicate a preference. There are a number of transportation systems that could be employed, whether it’s --

Mr. Lewis: You are getting yourself into hot water on this one.

Mr. Breaugh: Just because you said it, doesn’t make it so.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- a pipeline or some other system, and also whether it’s in one location or another.

Mr. Cassidy: What other system? You favour the pipeline.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No, there’s no change in our position on this.

NURSES’ DISPUTE

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour: Can the Minister of Labour tell the House what purpose was served by appointing Mr. John Sheriff as an industrial inquiry commissioner with respect to the public health nurses’ dispute, since Mr. Sheriff has been unable to suggest a remedy to deal with the situation and has simply recommended that the parties return to the bargaining table even though nurses employed by 27 public health units have been unable to reach agreement after bargaining for 18 months?

Mr. Reed: That’s a good one.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner, I suppose, is always a bit of a gamble. It is a mechanism which can be used when there are difficult labour-management relationships that need to have some impetus given them in order to improve the situation.

I had been hopeful that we would have something perhaps a little more definitive in terms of suggested initiatives within that document. Unfortunately, they are not there. There are some interesting suggestions which are not included as recommendations. But as a result of the report I have had a meeting with the Association of Boards of Health and a meeting with the Ontario Nurses Association. I have listened to their responses to the report and it has, in fact, I think, stimulated some slightly modified responses on both sides. I see some hope and, in fact --

Mr. Cassidy: All the progress that was made at the Journal. Just the same situation.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and I shall be talking to both of those groups within the next week or so in order to attempt to find a solution to this problem.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary to the minister: As collective bargaining appears to have failed in this case and since the Sheriff report found that the Ontario Nurses Association proposal for voluntary arbitration was identical to legislation regulating the bargaining position of public health nurses employed by the federal government and several provincial governments -- namely New Brunswick and British Columbia -- in a satisfactory manner, why does the minister continue to refuse to permit public health nurses to adopt this option which is compulsory for most other Ontario public servants?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is, I think, certainly erroneous and probably premature to make any such statement about our stance. We have attempted, because we believe apparently within this society that the collective bargaining process is a useful social institution, to allow it to run its course. There are certain instances --

Mr. Cunningham: Eighteen months?

Mrs. Campbell: What course?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- in which it is less successful than it is in others. This is obviously one of the situations in which the degree of success has not measured up to the expectation.

There are a number of initiatives which I think we can take, and we propose to look at each one of them very carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. S. Smith: Here comes the anti-arbitration position.

Mr. Mackenzie: Could the Minister tell me how long she has had the report, or on what date she got the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I received the report on Friday, June 10, as a matter of fact, with the analysis attached at that point.

Mr. Mackenzie: Not on May 31?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I did not receive it on May 31.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere have a new question?

Mr. Warner: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: Are we on to a new question? It’s a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall allow a supplementary. The hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Sweeney: Does the minister share the view of the Minister of Health, her colleague, who, at a public meeting in Kitchener about a month ago, indicated with respect to this particular kind of dispute that he did not feel that strike should be used and rather felt that arbitration was better?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have a strong personal belief that the strike-lockout situation is inappropriate in the health-care field.

Mr. Speaker: Now the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: My supplementary to the minister is --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary? I thought it was a new question.

Mr. Warner: I would prefer a supplementary first before a new question.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary, then, on this.

Mr. Warner: I was wondering whether one of the initiatives that the minister mentioned would be to increase the funding level for the Metro Toronto boroughs from the 25 per cent level, which it is at at present, to 75 per cent which is enjoyed by other municipalities outside Metro Toronto.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That question should more properly be directed towards the Minister of Health. I have no control over the funding from the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Warner: I gathered that.

Mr. Speaker: Do you so direct the question to the Minister of Health? He’s not here.

Mr. Warner: Maybe it could be brought to his attention later.

LICENCE FEES

Mr. Warner: I have a question of the Treasurer. I’m wondering when the Treasurer will agree, not only with the elected officials of Metropolitan Toronto but also with several of his caucus colleagues, including cabinet ministers, that only taxis with a Metro Toronto licence should be allowed to pick up fares within Metro Toronto, or will the Treasurer continue to frustrate the attempts of 8,000 cab drivers to earn a decent living wage in the city?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not interested in frustrating anybody’s attempts to earn a decent living. I suppose I should put that on the record first. I have recently -- last night as a matter of fact -- reviewed some correspondence because I had a letter from the solicitor for the taxi association requesting a meeting with me sometime in July. I’ll attempt to arrange that. The last note I had on my file was that we were waiting for some legal opinions as to what it was possible to do legally before we could come to any conclusions about this matter. So far as I know, we have not yet received those opinions, I suppose, from the Attorney General.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer aware in his deliberation while waiting for the opinion that without that separate Metro licence, as long as the inequitable situation exists at Toronto International Airport, it will continue to provide the opportunity for outside cabs -- such as from Mississauga and Markham -- to raid this area, and that the government has the option of simply making a change to The Municipal Act and allowing Metro Toronto to set the licence that is required by the cabs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that puts it somewhat simplistically. There are two points to be considered: first whether legally we can make that kind of a change in The Municipal Act as something which would stand up, and secondly, we have to give some consideration, not only to the taxicab drivers and/or owners but also to the consumer.

INDUSTRY RELOCATION

Mr. Eakins: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The minister has indicated in numerous speeches his awareness of the deteriorating competitive position in Canadian industries. What is the policies and priorities division of the ministry doing to contend with the advantages to industry of choosing to locate in the United States, as some businesses see it -- such as lower wages, higher productivity, lower levels of taxation, lower costs of raw materials and larger markets?

Mr. Cassidy: Answer in 10 words or less.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: While we realize that in Ontario we have lost some of our competitive advantages, there are others that are still with us. These are the resources industry, the opportunity of a knowledgeable labour market and indeed some of the programs the Ministry of Industry and Tourism inspires, such as assisting municipalities in putting industrial land on the market, serviced at a lesser rate than in some other parts of North America.

[2:30]

We might as well face reality that in the United States there is a continuing pressure by state governments to assist municipalities in virtually putting some tax programs into place that will be an incentive to draw industries away from other parts of the North American continent into those particular states. One of the areas that we have moved on is the industrial parks development program. This allows for funding at a reduced interest rate for a longer period of time, indeed for allowing loans to industries at a longer period of time with a reduced interest rate if not completely eliminated.

I think we have to look at some of the tax advantages that the Treasurer brought in and that is the continuation of the relief of tax on new capitalized equipment for the manufacturing industry. These we believe are some of the things that will help to encourage the expansion and development of new industries in this province.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Does the minister have further solutions then to resolve the dilemma which is common among the branch plants in Ontario, where due to their higher operating costs in the province they have found it cheaper to end production and simply import their product from the US parent and use the Ontario plant for distribution purposes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In my discussions with the Hon. Jean Chretien in Ottawa, we have tried to bring into place some special tariff requirements if we are to make use of these sub-plant operations by international companies. Mr. Chretien and I have discussed it as it relates not only to American companies but to companies from other parts of the world as well. In the third-world countries where we have had some rather interesting tariff changes over the last period of time, those are being reduced gradually by the federal government to try to give some certainty of market position to Canadian companies either in Ontario or the balance of Canada.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, has the ministry looked at the possibility of doing market research through a government agency on behalf of a number or perhaps a consortium of small businesses?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Not only have we looked at it as the Ministry of Industry and Tourism for the province of Ontario, but we think it’s more important on a national basis that we as Canadian manufacturing organizations are losing potential market opportunities in the world because we have gone into markets as a multiple of Canadian companies rather than as a turnkey project being designed and developed within the borders of Canada.

We have suggested very strongly to the manufacturing association in Ontario and in Canada, indeed with the discussions again with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa, that turnkey operations should be put together by government itself -- but be controlled by the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe East has a final supplementary on this.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Is the minister prepared to consider establishing an extension of the industrial parks program to support the growth centres, as outlined in the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force, such as Midland, Barrie, Orillia and Collingwood?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at the time that we brought in the bill that related to the industrial parks incentive program, we specifically related it to northern Ontario and eastern Ontario, but there was the opportunity for the minister to review any area of the province where it appeared that there was some incentive required to assist industry to establish itself in that part of our province. I have said to several members in the opposition parties as well as in our own party that if they have specific cases, we are prepared to look at them and try to assist.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No. We will come back for further questions on that if there is time.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer or the ministry had the opportunity to review the expenditures and the tax levels of the constituent municipalities which make up the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the regional government itself, to determine whether or not there is some problem over the allocation of power and the method of use of responsibilities?

There appears to be extremely high taxes being levied and there is a great concern being expressed by a great number of people about the possibility of the region not being able to sustain itself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As the member is aware, at the request of the chairman of the region, she asked me to have my staff -- I think the word she used was “audit”; I am not sure if that’s the right word, but for lack of a better word -- to conduct an audit as to just what had happened to levies this year. The last time I spoke to my staff, I think they had the figures from the region and all of the municipalities except Stoney Creek, and they expected to be able to pull this together in the next couple of weeks. So I do not have an answer for the member today.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary, if I may: Are the figures that are being sought both the expenditures for municipal purposes at the lower level and expenditures for regional purposes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Then is it possible for the minister to indicate whether he might consider a review to be conducted locally by local people of the actual structure of the region to determine whether or not that structure can in fact work satisfactorily, since there are, as I say, some grave reservations being expressed with regard to that aspect of regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area -- perhaps in other places, too, but there specifically?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am waiting for the region. I indicated to them, as the member is no doubt aware, that although we preferred not to conduct reviews for a minimum of five years, that wasn’t cast in stone. I suggested to them several types of reviews and I understand they are considering that. I believe their next council meeting is July 5 and I suppose we will hear something from them some time after that. But I am not considering anything at the moment until I’ve heard from the regional council.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the Treasurer prepared to consider the suggestion I made some time ago that we take a tri-partisan approach and review regional government in general, since it seems to be the cause of considerable consternation in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Deans: Similar to the suggestion I made some time before.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Specifically, with respect to Hamilton-Wentworth I am not; I am waiting to hear from the regional council. Until we hear from the regional council I would not be making up my mind, and I, quite frankly, can’t think that it would be of much sense to recommend to my colleagues that the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition -- who previously had said he would dissolve all regional governments -- would be a very sensible one, to appoint a committee of members, including members of his party, with the aim of tearing down regional government. I can’t see that that would be a very productive exercise.

Mr. Eakins: Careful.

Mr. Cunningham: A supplementary: Yesterday, I directed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a petition pursuant to

section 121, subsection 2 of Bill 155, asking for an independent review. What would the Treasurer’s disposition be on that basis?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will wait until we see the request of the regional council.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy pertaining to a series of stories in the Globe and Mail back on June 3 and 4 about this secret inquiry by Mr. Justice Grant in relation to Hydro contracts. In view of the fact that he is the Minister of Energy, I take it responsible for Hydro, and a member of cabinet as well, would he tell us under what authority this inquiry was created? Was there an order in council authorizing the inquiry? What are the terms of reference of this inquiry? Was Mr. Justice Grant paid to do this so-called secret inquiry? Is the minister going to release the report?

Is he aware of the so-called secret report pursuant to this inquiry, and is he going to release the report and let us know the findings of Mr. Justice Grant pursuant to this inquiry?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I have no information on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean, you have no information on that? Why not?

Mr. Roy: What are you minister of?

Mr. Lewis: It’s a difficult question, but that’s ridiculous.

Mr. Roy: Is Hydro under the minister’s jurisdiction?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If the member doesn’t know that he shouldn’t be here.

An hon. member: You don’t know.

Mr. Roy: Is Hydro under this jurisdiction, and is he, as minister responsible for Hydro, saying he was not consulted about this inquiry and he has no knowledge whatsoever of the inquiry or the findings in the report by Mr. Justice Grant? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’ve already said that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that there are suggestions of influence-seeking by private corporations in relation to those particular jobs by Hydro, is the minister prepared to make a statement --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary question to a non-answer?

Mr. Cassidy: -- replying to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it wasn’t announced as such.

Mr. Lewis: Yes it was.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. That was a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the hon. member request permission for a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister reply to the question in the near future and find out the information he’s not able to provide to the House at this time?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I will pursue the area of concern that has been expressed by two members of the House. I’ll be happy to do that and to report back.

Mr. Roy: Is anybody out there aware of this inquiry?

FINANCIAL PROTECTION FOR FARMERS

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the information that two further packing houses in Ontario are in shaky financial positions, is it the intention of the minister to proceed with the implementation of his announced policy to provide income protection for producers under such circumstances?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, all being well, yes, I intend to bring it forward this session.

Mr. MacDonald: Can the minister give us some assurance that it will be brought before the House before there’s any more bankruptcy?

Hon. W. Newman: No, because I know of one that just happened yesterday, but certainly the legislation is being drafted. I intend to have it before the House before we leave.

An hon. member: A little late.

Mr. MacDonald: Before we leave in July?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Would the minister give an undertaking that in the event the legislation comes into the House after another bankruptcy takes place, the legislation would be made retroactive to cover any such eventuality?

Hon. W. Newman: That would be a very difficult thing to do, but I would be glad to look at it. I think it would be a very difficult thing to do; I’m sure the member is aware of that.

Mr. Roy: But you are a very able cabinet minister.

Mr. MacDonald: Farmers have suffered because of the minister’s delay.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations having to do with liquor policy. Is he aware that the liquor inspectors under the Liquor Licence Board are visiting licensed premises informing them of new regulations pertaining to Sunday sales? Is he aware of those regulations, was he the sponsor of any change in policy?

Secondly, can he announce to the House the position that the government is taking with regard to so-called lifestyle advertising, which was the subject of some news comments about two weeks ago indicating the government was contemplating a change in its former policy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In response to the first part of the question, I’m not aware of any change in Sunday liquor regulations. I’ll certainly look into it. Certainly the inspectors visit the licensees frequently to advise them on regulations. I’m not aware of any change in that regard.

As far as the advertising directives are concerned, there is an existing directive which the hon. member is aware of. There are certain revisions which have been recommended to cabinet which have not yet been approved. When they are approved, they will take the form of regulations, which will be published.

Mr. Nixon: Can the minister explain to the House why the government appears to be changing its former position? What has led the government to approach a possible ban of lifestyle advertising? Is it that the matter has been expressed, in the view of opposition parties as well as members of the minister’s own party, that such advertising should be banned or at least regulated and decreased?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We’ve always regulated it and limited it -- both the kind and volume of advertising used for alcoholic beverages. What we’re doing now is an update. The last one that we had, as I recall, was about two years ago.

As the member knows, the federal minister has expressed some concern about this and we have been negotiating with the federal government to try to refine our definition of what is lifestyle advertising. Most of us can recognize it, but very few of us can actually define it. So what we’re trying to do now is to come to grips with it properly, in a more sophisticated way than we have in the past. But it’s simply a continuation of an existing concern.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Why doesn’t the minister just ban liquor advertising?

Ms. Gigantes: Hey!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Because, Mr. Speaker, it has not been government policy to ban advertising in that area or any other area, to the best of my knowledge. Advertising happens to be the cornerstone of the market economy.

Mr. Cassidy: You guys are prisoners of ideology.

An hon. member: What about cigarettes?

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: Was there a further supplementary on this side? Either one of you, whichever you wish.

Mr. Peterson: In view of the comments of some of the minister’s colleagues, particularly the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott), advocating an increase in the age of majority for drinking --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not related to the question.

Mr. Peterson: It is very much related to liquor in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Right, but it has nothing to do with the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If it is in relation to the first question that was asked, I will allow the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot with a supplementary, and then I will allow one over there.

Mr. Sweeney: Does the minister have any intentions of specifically directing his ministry’s attention towards the ban of lifestyle advertising for young people, because that is where most of it seems to be directed right now?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That is part of the entire question. Of course advertising specifically directed to young people under certain settings is lifestyle advertising. Our problem really is to find an enforceable definition of what we are trying to regulate. That is what we are doing and we have been doing. There are regulations in place now which prevent certain kinds and certain styles of advertising. The problem is to bring those up to date in line with current community standards, and that is what we are trying to do.

When the new regulations come before cabinet they will be examined very carefully and I am sure my colleagues will have some suggestions. My colleagues for the most part have not seen the new regulations. Until they have, there will be nothing published.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One final supplementary on this from the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: If the government is willing to ban a certain type of advertising, why isn’t it willing, as a matter of government policy, to go further and ban advertising for the product? Is it because so much government revenue is dependent on sale of alcoholic beverages?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The kind of advertising which has taken place in Ontario, and most other provinces which permit advertising, has been brand-oriented advertising. We have done all kinds of research to indicate that stopping advertising, as has happened in other jurisdictions, simply hasn’t in any way curtailed either the sales or the increase in sales of alcoholic beverages. There is a great deal of the Ontario economy which depends on the advertising industry and provided we have no evidence, and we don’t have any, that advertising increases the total amount of consumption I don’t see any reason at the moment to ban it.

Mr. Nixon: Do you believe that?

STELCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Davison: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to investigate the charges of Cyril Jackson in regard to environmental abuses at Stelco in Hamilton, would the minister inform the House as to what validity there is in Mr. Jackson’s charges? Would the minister also table with the House all of the documentation he’s used in arriving at his conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Apparently Mr. Jackson made two accusations regarding Stelco. First of all, he claimed that the brickwork in the open hearth furnaces was not complete, was not high enough; and secondly, that the precipitators in the furnace were being turned off at night.

This was investigated by my ministry and the inspections revealed that in fact the brickwork was done properly, and that this had been inspected regularly while the construction work was going on. I understand that the mayor of Hamilton and his pollution committee were making a tour yesterday also to inspect the work and the area about which the allegations were made.

Secondly, it is my ministry’s intention that if the precipitators are turned off at night, there’s no saving to the company. Also, our monitoring system would pick up any deterioration in the ambient air quality as a result of such a shutdown.

That’s the information we have at the present time and I’d be happy to table any documents we have backing up that information.

Mr. Davison: A short supplementary: That means then that the minister is saying there is absolutely no validity in the charges that Mr. Jackson has made as far as his ministry is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am just saying that -- yes, that is basically what I am saying. However, it has still to be followed up, as I say, with a report from the Hamilton pollution committee as a result of their tour yesterday. I assume that that will be taken to the council, after which a final disposition would then be made of this.

RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the serious violations taking place under the provisions of The Environmental Protection Act in respect to soft drink containers as outlined in a Pollution Probe letter to his ministry dated June 21, 1977, what has his ministry done to see that the retailers mentioned in the letter are complying with the law?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this is the matching provision the member is talking about, the regulation that came into effect in April. We have been encouraging groups such as Pollution Probe to make any inspections they want to see that the regulation is being complied with. When we have a complaint that certain retail outlets are not handling returnable containers as required by the regulation, then our inspection staff will follow up with that and if the allegation is borne out charges would be considered.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Did I hear the minister right in saying that the enforcement of these regulations is left either to individuals who will make complaints or associations like Pollution Probe? Doesn’t he have any inspectors out there in the field looking to see if there are any infringements of these regulations?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the question placed by the hon. member’s colleague, in that groups are in fact carrying out their own checking, shall we say, of the regulation.

Mr. Foulds: It shows a certain lack of faith in your ministry, doesn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have our own staff who go around occasionally. I think the hon. member realizes that to inspect every retail outlet in the province would require at least a doubling of our inspection staff. So we encourage groups such as Pollution Probe, and Garbage Coalition, if they wish, to carry this out and to report to us.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll have a final supplementary. I think the hon. member was going to rise and his neighbour stood up first.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I cut him off.

Mr. Speaker: You did. So we will give the hon. member for Huron-Bruce a final supplementary on this.

Mr. Roy: I am very sorry about that.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering, in view of what the minister has said -- the fact that the ministry is short of inspectors, and is depending on outside groups -- does he have any other avenues through which he can ensure that retailers across the province are abiding by the mandatory availability provisions for soft drink containers?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have the undertaking of the industry itself that it will comply with the regulations. The Ontario Soft Drink Association, for example, and the Retail Merchants Association, have all indicated they will comply with this regulation. If as a result of our inspection, or as a result of a complaint or any other type of inspection, we are told that a particular store or a particular chain of stores is not complying with the regulations, then of course we take whatever action is available to us under the legislation.

I don’t know what more we can do. Certainly we cannot hire enough inspectors within my ministry to carry out a continuous inspection of all the retail outlets in the province.

INCO EMISSIONS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that negotiations are presently going on between officials of his ministry and Inco concerning the level of emissions from the super stack at Sudbury; and in view of the fact as well that the technical knowledge about high stack emissions has changed since that control order was first imposed several years ago; and also in view of the fact that the results of these negotiations will have a --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Question.

Hon. W. Newman: Let’s get the question.

Mr. Laughren: -- major impact on people, on fish, on water and on soil; will the minister direct that the negotiations presently going on behind doors be held in public?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all, as the hon. member knows, we’ll have to get the result of a study that is going on in the Sudbury area which we hope will be completed this year. That has been a five-year study involving the companies, Environment Canada, the Ontario Research Foundation and my ministry. The results of that study we hope will indicate what the reasonable levels should be at the termination of the present control order, I believe that is starting in 1979. So certainly we will have time before that to assess or reassess the final level requirement that was set back in, I believe 1971 or 1972.

I’ll say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn’t appear the company can meet that objective. It is a reduction in 1978 from 3,500 parts per million down to 750, and I frankly really don’t know what our people or anybody else were thinking about back a few years ago in setting that level, because it would appear at the present time that it is not possible to achieve.

However, the company wants to set a level that we’re not satisfied with; certainly a reduction of 300 or 400 parts per million is not adequate. If we are talking about 2,000 then that is generally the ballpark. I’m waiting for that study, but I think, really, if we do reach an agreement sometime this year there is no reason why the explanation and the rationale behind that agreement can’t be made known to the public and be subject to a public hearing.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Does the minister not think that the public at large, and indeed many interested environmental groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Pollution Probe, and elected officials in the various levels of government, have a right to take

part in these negotiations before any conclusion has been reached, and that it’s an insult to these people to tell them after the fact the decision the minister has arrived at?

Mr. Warner: Absolutely.

Mr. Laughren: And it is tons per day not parts per million we are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It depends on the criteria.

Mr. Lewis: The criteria? That is quite different.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member mentioned a final decision being made. I think there is no reason why the public can’t be involved before a final decision is made, but I think because of the very technical nature of these negotiations that are going on, certainly there should be some conclusion which could be taken to a public meeting. In other words, if the ministry and the industry agree on a certain level then that can be taken to a public meeting and the reasons behind it explained.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We have spent quite a bit of time on both a lengthy question and a lengthy answer and we’ll get on to another question. If there is time, we’ll get back to it.

ATIKOKAN HYDRO PLANT

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Can he indicate whether he has received the proposal from Ontario Hydro for a Hydro generating plant at Marmion Lake near Atikokan? If he has received the report has he taken it to cabinet, and when can we expect approval of the building of the plant at Atikokan?

Mr. Roy: Does the minister know anything about that?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: To the two first parts of the question, yes and yes; I have received the report and it has been approved. I think the announcement will be tomorrow,

Mr. Roy: Will he be invited?

INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS

Mr. Martel: Can the Minister of Labour now tell me what steps are being taken to assist those men who have suffered industrial deafness, with respect to lip reading and speech therapy being provided in the Sudbury area instead of coming to Toronto?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the whole subject of industrial deafness, the treatments, the investigations necessary for individuals who are in positions which might lead to industrial deafness specifically in that area; the treatment programs, the remedial and therapeutic programs and the follow-up rehabilitation programs, are matters which are under discussion between the assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Labour responsible for occupational health and safety --

Mr. Laughren: Two years now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- I am sorry, Dr. May has only been there since December -- and the director of rehabilitation services for the Workmen’s Compensation Board. They have also had discussions with some of the specialists in this area, not only in Toronto but in other places, and are in the process of developing the rationale for the program in Sudbury and throughout the province.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary: Could the minister then indicate to us the deadlines for these reports to be finalized, since three years of prodding this government to deal with that problem have gone by since I first started to raise it in 1974?

[3:00]

Hon. B. Stephenson: I wasn’t aware that the hon. member for Sudbury East had been raising it for that length of time, Mr. Speaker. I was aware that he had some communication with the Ministry of Health.

I can’t give him a date, because it’s not a matter of accepting records; it’s a matter of discussing the problem, establishing the guidelines and the levels which are required, and then attempting to establish the proper programs.

RADIATION HAZARD

Mr. Sweeney: A question to the Minister of the Environment: Could the minister explain how it was possible for the Ministry of Health to have advised James Galloway to leave his home because of high radiation in 1975, when the Ministry of the Environment had that information in 1973 and didn’t do anything about it, and Mr. Galloway subsequently died?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where Mr. Galloway lived --

Mr. Sweeney: Elora.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and I would suggest that I wouldn’t have that information. If the hon. member will give it to me, I’ll get an answer for him.

TOURISM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the dropoff in American visitors last year and his comments during the campaign about the need for a major promotional program by the private sector and the public sector, can the minister give us any indication of what his ministry is doing this year to try to promote American tourism throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Tourism in the northern part of the province has increased slightly over a year ago, and we think it perhaps can be attributed partly to the redirection of our advertising program which the ministry has implemented in the last eight or nine months. First of all, we have gone away from television advertising in the United States and into more selective advertising in publications and newspapers that serve a particular disposable income bracket, which we think is the type of funding that’s required to travel to a place known as Ontario.

Very clearly, the fact is that tourism in North America, whether it relates to a given state or city, has been down over the last 24 months or a little longer than that. In Ontario, we think we’ve been able to maintain a fairly high percentage; and the spending position has been improved. While I admit that the number of people coming to the province of Ontario from the United States is down, it has been somewhat supplemented by the numbers of Ontarians staying at home and doing their visiting here.

I think it has been related basically to the very sophisticated advertising program that we’ve placed in North America and in the domestic market, and the emphasis we’ve been trying to give to specific areas of the province of Ontario in advertising to Ontarians.

Mr. Cunningham: Are you advertising in British Columbia?

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate what increase he expects as a result of his efforts and if he is aiming his advertising mainly at the high-income bracket or the lower-income bracket? What type of tourism is he trying to promote, especially in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We hope that in the current year we will be able to maintain a market position equal to last year’s, which will be quite a change compared to the rest of the national position.

Mr. Makarchuk: Quite an increase.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said “maintain.” We’re not really trying to predict a substantial increase in the market position of tourism in Ontario. If we can hold the position we had a year ago, in light of inflation and in light of the increased cost of gasoline and a few of the other deterrents, I think we will do extremely well.

Yes, we have aimed our advertising program basically at a very high disposable income group, being the income group in the range of $18,000 to $20,000 in the United States. That’s the market we believe will have sufficient disposable income to offset the cost of travelling north of the border.

FISH LEVELS

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware that since the eight-inch limit on perch was put into effect last year, the gill netters in Port Dover are still having a problem making enough catch to live within that limit and that charges are being laid at the present time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have been aware of the problems. I believe the Ombudsman also looked into the problems of the fishermen in that area and some of the rules imposed. The rules were imposed, of course, to protect the fishery, and I think it’s not wise to assume that one should catch small fish and therefore destroy future fishing potential.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sort of two for one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would hope that in the long run, the steps being taken currently are in the interests of the commercial fishermen and I hope they’ll appreciate that.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Could I ask one supplementary? Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Mr. S. Smith: May I rise on a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: On a point of privilege, yes.

REPORT EVALUATION

Mr. S. Smith: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) was given, from the Ministry of Education, a document which was dated April and had to do with evaluation in Ontario. He was also given a copy of a statement dated today, allegedly made by the minister, or to be made by the minister.

My point of privilege is twofold. One is that that statement appears not to have been made, and we wonder what the status of it is, because estimates are coming up right after the question period.

The other is this: In view of the fact that this report was ready and on the minister’s desk for some months now and in view of the fact that our staff has asked for it repeatedly, we feel that it’s a breach of the privileges of the members of this House to have it suppressed and just supplied to our member right now before the estimates begin on the very same day with hardly enough time to study it. I think the secrecy in this case is a breach of the privileges of the members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: There are rules and regulations as to the presentation of these materials -- of course, I don’t know those things are going on; I presume that the rules are being followed. There is nothing I can do about it at this particular time; I’ll check into it and, if necessary, I’ll report back.

Does the hon. member for Wentworth North have a point to raise?

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders, I would like to indicate that I’m dissatisfied with the answer given to me by the Treasurer regarding regional government.

Mr. Speaker: It shall be so noted.

Petitions.

REPORTS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon. B, Stephenson presented the annual report for the Workmen’s Compensation Board for the year 1976.

Mr. Martel: That should be a disaster.

Mr. Warner: And spend your time apologizing.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further reports?

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved, that supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Social Development Policy Secretariat be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Social Development Policy

Social Development Policy program ...… $2,214,000

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further reports?

Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SECURITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of Bill 30,

An Act to revise The Securities Act.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend The Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

COMMODITY FUTURES ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of Bill 32,

An Act to Regulate Trading in Commodity Futures Contracts.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, these three bills are reintroductions of bills which were introduced in the previous Legislature and compendia have already been distributed to the opposition critics.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, on a point of order, might I ask for some direction with respect to the adjournment debate that will otherwise result from the dissatisfaction of my colleague from Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) with a certain answer given today. The adjournment debate is meant to take place on Tuesday and Thursday evenings in the ordinary case.

Since the House is sitting this evening and since we are sitting tomorrow only on the usual Friday hours from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., could you give direction as to whether you wish this matter to proceed this evening or whether it would be more convenient to have it proceed next Tuesday evening. It might be of mutual advantage to the members involved. I don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: It would be my thinking on it that it should be next Tuesday evening. It is the first Tuesday or Thursday evening that we will be sitting. Next Tuesday evening was what I had in mind.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fine. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of interest, can there be dissatisfaction on a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: Oh sure, especially if it comes from you.

Mr. Deans: You could create dissatisfaction without a question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that tomorrow, June 30, the House will sit at 10 a.m. and rise at 1 p.m.; and when it rises it will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, July 4.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 6,

An Act to amend The Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Mr. Swart: I had the opportunity to make some comments on this bill before the debate was adjourned yesterday at 6 o’clock. I pointed out that our party had some strong reservations about this bill.

First of all, the level of transfer payments does not meet the level of need of the municipalities. Property taxes last year and this year are going up more rapidly than the cost of living or the average salary and wages. The amount of money being transferred does not live up to the Edmonton commitment, the commitment given by this government in 1973 to the municipalities, which stated that the level of transfers would keep up with the amount of increase in revenue year by year of the provincial government.

I just want to say that this is a bill which should be providing the additional transfers rather than by other means, because the unconditional nature of these transfers is certainly beneficial in two respects: One, because it gives more autonomy to the local municipalities; and two, because it does not encourage excessive spending in the same way that subsidies which are based on a percentage of expenditures do. Therefore, this bill is inadequate in the amount of transfers that it makes to local governments.

The second part of this bill, with which we had real reservations, is a matter on which I want to speak today. I suggest that it attempts to cover up the excessive costs of regional government and, in so doing, it penalizes municipalities which are not in regional government. This bill certainly recognizes the voracious appetite of regional government because it provides substantial additional assistance to the municipalities in regional government over and above the amount of moneys provided to municipalities which are outside of regional government. But it therefore penalizes those municipalities outside of regions by giving them substantially less assistance.

[3:15]

I would point out that if the city of Owen Sound had been in regional government this year, according to the tables they would in fact have received something like $125,000 more in grants than they now receive. In the case of Sarnia, this would be something like $350,000; Thunder Bay would have received $650,000 more; and the city of London, something like $1.5 million more in grants than they are now receiving.

Let me put that another way: If municipal costs in regions -- the expenditure per household -- were the same as in municipalities of comparable size outside of regions, and grants had been given proportionately, the government could double that $6 per capita additional grant which they now give to regional municipalities, to all municipalities in Ontario. They could have given $12 more per capita to every municipality in this province.

I say to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) that his government refuses to even question the principle of its type of regional government in this province. Certainly there have been reviews conducted within the individual regional municipalities and some are under way at the present time, but these do not deal with the fundamental issue of whether we can afford in this province two full-fledged tiers of local government in most of the areas.

The member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) in the question period today raised that issue. The member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith), the leader of the official opposition, also raised that question. I suggest that the Treasurer, in his answer, really evaded that in saying there would be an audit done in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. There have been these individual studies which have been done there and in many other places but never dealing with the fundamental issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want again to document the excessive municipal costs where regional governments exist in this province. A May 1976 publication -- that’s a year old now, but no further one has been produced -- of the municipal finance branch of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics, and Intergovernmental Affairs, is entitled “Regional Government In Perspective, A Financial Review.” It is a publication of this government and one must assume it would support what the government has done, yet it provided certain statistics which must cause questions with respect to the affordability of the kind of regional government we have in this province.

In that document, table seven, page 17, there are some significant figures. It compares the municipal expenditures per households for municipalities in three different categories -- Metro Toronto, inside regional governments and the rest of Ontario. It shows that from 1970 to 1975, expenditures per household increased in Metro from $836 to $1,450, or 73 per cent. In regions they increased from $656 to $1,344 or 105 per cent; and in the rest of the province, from $628 to $884 or just 41 per cent.

Let me repeat those figures: That in those five years, from 1970 to 1975, the municipal expenditure per household, apart from educational expenditures, increased in Metro by 73 per cent; increased in regions by 105 per cent; and in the rest of the province by 41 per cent. The significant thing is that by and large the division of the population of the province falls almost equally into those three categories, although Metro Toronto is slightly lower.

By the government’s own figures, therefore, expenditures per household in regional municipalities are 52 per cent higher than municipalities outside the regions. The rate of increase in the last five years has been two and a half times greater than the rest of the province. Yet the same municipalities, which now spend 52 per cent more per household, spent only 4.5 per cent more per household in 1970, just five years ago, when they were not in the regions.

Put another way, and using other figures from the same document, it shows that in Metro total spending was up 102 per cent in those five years, in regions 159 per cent, and in the other municipalities outside of regions and outside of Metro, up only 65 per cent. It also shows that taxes in the regions increased 40 per cent faster during those years than they did in Metro or in the municipalities outside of Metro and outside of the regions.

Arguments are put forward by the Treasurer of Ontario and by the supporters of regional government which attribute the higher expenditures to a faster growth rate and better services within the regions. They say that’s the main reason for the increase. Admittedly the municipalities in regional areas are growing somewhat faster on the average than those outside of the regions, but they also were in 1970 when they spent only 4.5 per cent more, not 52 per cent more as they’re spending at the present time.

Because of those arguments put forward in that document and by the Treasurer, a survey was made of comparable cities. I’ve compared such cities as Hamilton with the city of London -- somewhat comparable in population, somewhat comparable in growth rate. The expenditures per household in Hamilton in 1974 amounted to $1,069 compared to $816 in London. Who would say that London had that much poorer services than the city of Hamilton?

In Sudbury, the expenditures were $1,274 per household for municipal purposes compared to $1,051 in Thunder Bay, a city of comparable size. Cambridge, $1,214 compared to Brantford, $834. And so on down the line of municipalities of varying sizes within and without regional government, all showing that the expenditures per household in regional government were substantially higher than they were in the municipalities outside of regional government, down to places like Grimsby, with a population of 16,000 where they spent $1,015 per household, to Owen Sound where they spent $928, or Thorold where they spent $1,147 compared to Trenton where they spent $982.

It shows that in all of these 20 cities -- 10 inside regional government 10 outside regional government -- that the average expenditure per household in the municipalities inside regional government were $1,162 compared to $919 outside of regional government, or 25 per cent higher in the regional municipalities than in the non-regional areas.

The apologists for our present form of regional government also contend that there are so many small municipalities in the groupings outside of regional government that in the aforementioned publication comparisons are meaningless. That, I say, is not so.

The 1970 municipal blue book, financial information, which is the latest year published -- and I think that says something about the ministry -- gives figures which show rather strikingly the much higher expenditures per household of municipalities within regional government compared to ones of similar population outside of regional government.

Here are the figures computed from the blue book and these are the total expenditures per household for all municipal purposes by population groupings: The municipalities in the population groups 10,000 to 25,000, inside regions, $1,021 expenditure per household; outside regions, $800. In the 25,000 to 50,000 population, inside of regions, $1,089; outside of regions, $916. In the 50,000 to 100,000 class, $1,273 inside the regions and $874 outside. Over 100,000, $1,135 inside the region and $944 outside the region.

Thus the average expenditure per household of municipalities within regions compared to municipalities of the same size outside of regions is 28 per cent higher. I suggest that is serious enough that we should be taking a serious look at the principle of regional government. I think that is what we should be addressing ourselves to; and until the Treasurer does, the Ontario government should bear all the extra costs of regional government, not the property taxpayers.

Mr. Eakins: You are in favour of it, aren’t you?

Mr. Maeck: Who’s going to give us the money?

Mr. Swart: I am not in favour and never have been in favour of the type of regional government we have in this province, and that is fully on record in many places.

I say we must have this examination, perhaps even as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith), a three-party examination. Before the House fell in April, I presented a motion to this House, and I have now once again tabled it. It reads as follows:

“That in the opinion of this House, there now being some form of regional government covering more than 60 per cent of the population of Ontario and independent review studies of three regional governments completed or nearing completion” -- and more are being done now of course -- “ the general government committee of the House should be authorized to conduct by itself or through a subcommittee a full inquiry into the cost and benefits of the Ontario regional government system generally and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to examine in particular:

“1. The cost of providing various municipal services to residents of communities inside regional governments compared with the costs in communities outside of regional governments:

“2. The degree of duplication, overlap, bureaucracy and redundancy in intermunicipal and municipal-provincial relationships of regional versus non-regional local governments;

“3. The perceived and actual public accountability of the regional systems;

“4. Alternative methods to the full-fledged, two-tier system of local government.”

In conclusion, I say the Edmonton commitment, the inadequacy of transfers and the regional government reorganization ought to be an integral part of the conditional grant consideration we have before us in this bill. They are ignored, and therefore we support this bill with a great deal of difficulty. I say we only support it because if it is defeated the municipalities are going to be hurt even more, they will have less revenue.

But I want to say, in conclusion, that you can be assured we on this side of the House will continue to fight for fundamental changes. We object to this sort of proposal which perpetuates the inequities and the injustices to the municipalities and to the property taxpayers.

Mr. Ashe: After listening to the hon. member for Welland-Thorold, I wonder whether he is addressing his remarks to Bill 6, which we are considering today,

An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act, 1975.

Mr. Peterson: An astute observation.

Mr. Ashe: It seems to me he had a dissertation relating to regional government and regional government only.

Mr. Ruston: He is in favour of it.

An hon. member: He is a federalist.

Mr. Ashe: The thing that amazes me is how we have many experts who have really not been involved in that particular level of government and don’t really know what is going on. In actual fact they are one of the reasons there have been some problems with it. The attitude of some members in that corner of the House, out in the hustings, and out in the areas, has been very negative. Instead of being positive to help implement it and make it work, they have done everything to make it difficult for the commitments of that level of government.

[3:30]

As the member for Welland-Thorold indicated, there is no doubt at all that costs in the regionalized areas are somewhat higher than in the unregionalized areas. He did indicate, and it is fact; the main reason for it, and I am really surprised that a member from the third party would suggest that it is outside the bounds of their particular thoughts and philosophies that all people within an area and all people within this province of ours should not enjoy the same level of service.

That, of course, is one of the reasons why regional government is generally doing its task and doing its job; albeit on the short term at somewhat higher costs, because in equalizing the level of service throughout a wide area; expanding the level of service over a wide regionalized area, there is no doubt that there are substantial capital costs in the earlier years. This is what has been seen in most regional areas, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House that this is levelling out and will level out in most areas when it has had time to operate.

Getting more specifically to Bill 6, I think it is an area of course that is appreciated by all municipalities, this is not the greatest area of concern to municipal government, and I have been a party to that system for some seven and a half years up until about a couple of weeks ago. The main concerns of municipalities have been to do with the conditional grants not the unconditional grants, albeit there is no doubt there has been an ongoing difference of opinion as to the

interpretation of the Edmonton commitment as was referred to by the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. I have been on the other side of that particular fence too, as a member of the Provincial Liaison Committee. He is quite aware of that, and made reference to that fact yesterday. That really doesn’t come to a great deal in Bill 6. Municipalities this year generally were quite in favour of the in- creases that are proposed by this bill and, of course, their budgets were set with the particular figures indicated in this bill in mind.

One of the concerns -- and this also was expressed yesterday; I’m not sure whether it was by the previous speaker or by a former speaker -- is the unconditional grant for police purposes.

There is no doubt in my experience, and from hearing the experiences of other people who have been involved in the municipal level of government for the last number of years, that the police commissions generally seem to have taken upon themselves that when there was an increase in the police grant in any form, whether it be in the regionalized areas or non-regionalized areas, that this really was a licence to spend these extra dollars within the police function.

I would recommend to the Treasurer and suggest that in a future year -- I’m not suggesting it in this particular Bill 6 at all -- possibly the unconditional grants should actually be a total dollar grant and not specifically identified for police purposes, and possibly some of the areas that the police commissions have been taking unto their own to spend these source of funds might be somewhat not as identifiable for them.

One of the concerns that municipalities have had generally, and I have expressed this in the past, comes in directly to what the hon. member was referring to before about growth areas. As I indicated before, there is no doubt at all that these areas are expanding their level of service and equalizing their level of service because they are accepting, generally speaking, growth rates in their population that are in some instances significantly higher than the provincial average.

I don’t think that the present situation in our unconditional grants of basing grants on population figures that are related to the previous autumn are really fair to those municipalities and those regions who have large growth going on in them. Possibly consideration can be given in a future amendment to this bill to recognize municipalities in growth areas so that they can get an advantage of a more up to date, probably average figure of what the population they serve and offer their services to might be from one year to the other.

In closing, I think Bill 6 before us should be expeditiously handled by the House so that the moneys that have been indicated and programmed and used in the budgets of the various respective municipalities, whether they be local or whether they be regional, can be implemented. Let’s get on with the job. Thank you.

Mr. B. Newman: I wish to make a few comments concerning this bill, Mr. Speaker, and most of my comments are going to be repetitive as far as the minister is concerned, because they are going to be parochial and deal with the city of Windsor and the services it provides to the adjacent municipalities.

The minister is aware that the municipality of Windsor, not being a regionalized government, has certain oversize facilities, such as water treatment plants and water works plants to enable the growth to take place in the surrounding municipalities. But even though it may have the responsibilities of a regionalized municipality, it is not provided the funding that a regionalized municipality receives from the government.

In other words, it is being mistreated in terms of funding, and I would sincerely hope that the minister would review the situation as far as my community is concerned and assist it to maintain a more reasonable tax rate so that the residents at least would have increases that are at a reasonable level without arbitrarily cutting off essential services.

There is also another problem as far as the grants are concerned; that is, the grants are based on population statistics. Whose statistics are we going to take? In my own community we had a series of statistics that indicated a 205,000 population and then another series that showed a population of 195,000; and because of the difference, where the breakoff point happens to be 200,000 population, it puts the municipality in an adverse financial position if the population is taken as being 195,000 rather than 205,000.

The mayor did have a study conducted in which it was indicated the population was greater than that reported by the assessment commissioner. I’m just wondering if there couldn’t be some agreed statistical information as far as population is concerned so that confusion wouldn’t arise again in the future.

So, even though the city of Windsor is not a regional government, for all intents and purposes it provides the surrounding municipalities with some of the services that a regional government provides.

As far as the grant structure is concerned, I think there should be sizeable increases. If one compared my community with the city of London, one would find that the overall financial assistance to the city of London is substantially greater than it is to the city of Windsor. Not that we wish to have anything taken away from the city of London, but we would like to be elevated to the same status as that of the city of London.

This is the extent of my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister in replying to all of the speakers will lend a more cheerful and better ear to the plight of the city of Windsor and provide them with extra funding so that the property tax rate will not increase as substantially in the future as it did in the past.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: The brevity of the last speaker left me in a mild state of shock, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I won’t be shocked if you are brief.

Mr. Reid: Follow his example.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ll be relatively brief too.

May I say at the outset that if the hon. member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) felt that my colleague from Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) was missing the principle of the bill because he was discussing regional government in some detail, maybe I should anticipate a mild protest on his part once again because I intend to try to put this bill in a bit of historical perspective, because I think that’s what’s got to be done.

Obviously we support this bill, because it is at least of some assistance to existing municipalities. It’s going to provide sane measure of relief. Without it, the burden would be even greater; that, of course, is the problem. The trend, as has been delineated in much detail by my colleague from Welland-Thorold, has been that provincial grants have been taking a smaller and smaller proportion of the burden that is falling upon the local municipalities.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. MacDonald: It is not nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It certainly is.

Mr. Swart: It is not.

Mr. MacDonald: The proportion of the burden that is falling on local taxpayers through the property tax has been going up. And it’s been going up because while there was a thrust on the part of this government in the early 1970s, sort of symbolized or institutionalized in the Edmonton commitment, there has been a backing off from the Edmonton commitment. I don’t want to get into an argument as to the extent of the backing off or the details of it. There has been some backing off, and because there has been a backing off, the government has reverted to the old trend of an increasing proportion of that burden to fall on local taxpayers.

That, it seems to me, makes it necessary to put it in historical perspective. Because we’re looking at two or three little bits and pieces, two or three little nibblings at the corners of a very great problem. It is a problem that was examined in excessive detail, not only in the broad context of the inequity of our tax structure and the Carter commission investigation federally or in the Smith committee investigation in the province of Ontario, but in what’s going to be done to come to grips with the most inequitable of all of the taxes in what is conceded to be a basically inequitable tax structure across the board. The most inequitable of all the taxes, of course, is the property tax.

We’ve had in the last 10 years in the province of Ontario, no fewer than six tax studies. There was the Smith committee study. It made its recommendations. The government or the Legislature then appointed a select committee which examined the recommendations of the Smith committee; the so-called White committee once again did an overall job. In the interval, we’ve had three studies of special tax problems such as farm lands and golf course taxing and things of that nature.

A year ago, the government once again came back to this unresolved problem, spelled out a number of questions and appointed another commission, the Blair commission, to examine it. I think I am accurate in stating that the provincial Treasurer and many other spokesmen for the government said that they were awaiting the recommendations of the Blair commission because with their guidance and their reply, with the input that they would have had from all across the province on these 14 key questions, the government presumably was finally going to grasp the nettle and do something about it.

But almost within the hour of the making public of the Blair commission report, the provincial Treasurer indicated that it was too controversial, that he was going to seek more input.

Well, for how long do we go on in this process of seeking more input? This issue has been studied to death. I concede, Mr. Speaker, that it is a complex problem, but I insist that its complexities are not going to be reduced by continued procrastination that has gone on now in recognizing there was a problem for literally a generation or more and in studying that problem for the last decade.

During the course of the election campaign, the government once again, though it was within the context of the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) assertion that he was going to make no promises -- he was going to be running on his record, so to speak -- but as the pressures of the campaign went on, some promises began to emerge. One of them was a little bit more relief to senior citizens from the burden of education tax.

I don’t know what other members of the Legislature have found, but there is no other topic -- apart from the high-priority items in our casework with our constituents such as housing and workmen’s compensation and unemployment insurance and so on -- that I, in discussing and meeting with my constituents, find raised more frequently than the excessive burden of education tax on senior citizens. Their argument is an argument that they see in highly personal terms.

They have paid the education tax for years to the municipality, they have educated their children, why should they now have to continue to pay in a fashion which is driving them out of the home which may be most of the asset that they’ve got left in life, the achievement of a lifetime’s working and raising their family?

[3:45]

But the government once again nibbled at it. But in nibbling at it, Mr. Speaker, they underlined how impossible this is of providing an overall solution if you are only adding a bit more here and bit more there. It is wise, it is well, it is a good thing, to relieve the burden on senior citizens. But there are others who are on fixed income, there are others who are on low incomes; and they are struggling to maintain their homes with young and growing families and all the attendant expenses upon whom the burden falls just as heavily.

My plea to this government, in the context of this bill and the principle we are taking a look at here, is that the time has long since passed when we should seek to relieve this acknowledged burden, the acknowledged inequity of the property tax, without coming to grips with this problem, without coming up with whatever are this government’s answers to the recommendations of the Blair commission.

In an obvious and very brief digression, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is partly in this kind of increase in unconditional grants. But to get back into another running theme in Ontario politics for the past 30 years, if you want to relieve the burden at the local level, sure you do it by increasing the unconditional grants, but you recognize what has been pointed out to this government by the organized municipalities across this province for years; namely that it is not a legitimate proposition that you should lay such a large burden of the services to people upon local property taxes.

Services to property, fine; sewage, police, fire and so forth. But services to people are more legitimately and more equitably raised from the general revenue of the province, from the general economic capacity, both in the personal and corporate fields, for meeting, for example, the needs of education.

We all know that the Tory party was elected in 1943 on the promise that they were going to grapple with that problem and meet at least 50 per cent of the cost of education, so that you wouldn’t have this burden at the local level that is nibbled at by these small increases in unconditional grants. We all know that it took them about 15 or 20 years before they fulfilled the promise of 50 per cent. Then they got up to 60 per cent.

The plea of the opposition parties was at least 80 per cent of the burden of education costs should be met from provincial government grants, services to people raised from the overall wealth of this province. But we’re slipping back, we’re slipping beyond the 60 per cent. Having headed in the right direction, the trend is now back in the direction of square one where this government started out back in 1943.

So, Mr. Speaker I reiterate that we support this, but we support it with all of the qualifications, with all of the concerns that have been expressed by my colleague who is the critic on municipal taxes and municipal affairs, the hon. member for Welland-Thorold. We support it because, at least, it’s a small measure of relief, but it is not the answer. I pray that sometime this minister, instead of bellowing at us in rhetoric and in outworn ideology, will grapple with some of these problems and come up with some sort of a solution to the whole problem instead of nibbling at the corners of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know if I’ve had occasion, publicly, to tell you how good a job you’re doing, but I’d like to put that clearly on the record and wish you Godspeed in that position and long life. Likely the job may become permanent if you continue with the same efficacy that you’ve started.

If I can be very parochial --

Mr. Peterson: You just were.

Mr. Roy: No, no. I’m not being parochial; I was being very objective towards the Speaker, I thought.

What I want to say very briefly with respect to Bill 6 is simply this: First of all, I’m concerned, as has been expressed by other members, that the unconditional grants are not solving the tax problems of municipalities. Very often these are problems that have been imposed on them by this government, and certainly by this minister.

I can recall a year or so ago -- I think it was early in 1977 -- raising with the minister the fact that in the Ottawa area the taxes appeared to be 25, 50, and up to 75 per cent higher than they were in other comparable jurisdictions such as London, Hamilton, and certainly Toronto. At that time I had raised it with the Treasurer and asked him if there was something he could do if there was some explanation that could be given why the taxes for the residents in Ottawa-Carleton were so much higher than in comparable municipalities in other areas of the province.

At that time the minister, in one of his moments of gusto, replied to me that if I had any problems with the taxes locally I should be going back to these municipal politicians and saying to them that they obviously are doing something wrong, or at least their efficiency was questionable as compared to local politicians in other areas of the province. I thought that that was to some measure unfair because certainly Ottawa-Carleton had regional government imposed on them by this government and as I recall, if not this minister, certainly his predecessor, with the approval of the present minister, who was a member of cabinet at that time.

Of course, we saw the results, as in many other areas of the province, where taxes just shot right up. We have seen that the blueprint for regional government -- that of making it bigger, more efficient and more responsible -- just hasn’t worked out that way. What it has done is just added another layer of government. It has cost more money and so on.

I raised this with the minister and had very little response. The reason I bring it up again, and I think it’s relevant to this bill, is that the minister again has issued a speech that he made on June 21 to the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. In that speech he published a list of statistics of the mill rate changes and residential property taxes per household, 1977. Again from this list it indicates there are problems in Ottawa-Carleton.

For instance, in Toronto the average tax per year per household is $597, where in Ottawa it’s $693, which means that in Ottawa we are paying close to $100 more per residence on average than Toronto. As compared, let’s say, to Hamilton, Hamilton is paying $596, a dollar less than Toronto -- again a situation whereby Ottawa is paying more and of the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area Ottawa is the one that has the lowest rate. In fact Nepean township has an average rate of $990. Gloucester has a somewhat higher rate as well; I think I have the other ones here.

Gloucester township has something like $836. The single family tax load in Nepean is something like $1,003 per year. And, of course, there is the residence in Rockcliffe -- and I have somewhat less sympathy there because they live in means that are affluent and adequate, but just as a matter of interest, in Rockcliffe the average resident pays something like $2,328 per year.

Mr. Peterson: Is that in your riding, Albert?

Mr. Roy: No, that’s not in my riding.

Mr. Peterson: That’s why you don’t care.

Mr. Roy: I have to say to my colleague from London Centre that, of course, I have great support there. The people love me in Rockcliffe and there’s no problem these.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was important to bring this again to the attention of the minister and --

Mr. Peterson: Do you allow lies in the House, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Roy: -- in fact I brought it to the attention in the question period again. Surely with all the officials that the Treasurer has and all the experts that he has, he can call on them at a moment’s notice to give him some statistics, some explanation.

In fact the minister tried to do that during the election itself, Mr. Speaker. The minister called on his ministry people and in no time they had the costing of the NDP election promises so I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that the minister --

Mr. Makarchuk: If they are as good at that as they were on the election, the Treasurer had better not call on them too often.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I am concerned about that explanation.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that it’s not really fair to say that if Ottawa has that problem, or Gloucester or Nepean township, that it is the fault of the local politicians, because it was by this government, with the acquiescence of his minister, that regional government was imposed on us. We didn’t really ask for it and we are suffering the tax increase that so many other regional municipalities are facing. I want to bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that through your good graces we will get the minister to respond to the plight of the people in the Ottawa-Carleton area, to a very valid objection, and I think something that is supported by the ministry’s own statistics.

The second point I want to deal with in this bill is the question of the grants to police forces. Again, I am concerned about what is happening to Ottawa-Carleton, because the per capita grant to police forces associated with regional municipalities -- in other words, to regional police forces -- is $15 per capita, but if they are associated with just the municipality it’s $10 per capita. Again, that’s unfair. It’s unfair because a succession of ministers have come to Ottawa-Carleton and said, “No, we are not going to impose regional police forces here.” The main reason they don’t do it --

Mr. Peterson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don’t see a quorum.

Mr. Cunningham: Well, the Treasurer just left.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the hon. member that there are two other committees sitting at this time, and it is sometimes difficult. However, if the member wishes, I will ask the Clerk to ascertain if there is a quorum.

Mr. Roy: I’ll tell you what, Mr. Speaker. I am not so concerned about the quorum as having the minister there. I would like to see him sitting there, and he’s gone during very important remarks. I am sure it was something important that he was called out on. In any event -- ah, here he is, he’s come back. Now that I see the minister coming back into the House I am less interested in a quorum, considering what’s going on in other parts of this august building.

As I was explaining, a succession of ministers have come to Ottawa-Carleton, and they have said, “No, we have no intention of imposing a regional police force on Ottawa-Carleton, because the forces that are there are doing a good job.” It seems to me that makes sense, if you’ve got a police force or a variety of police forces working in concert and they are doing a good job, why should you have a regional force?

The statistics again bear out that in Ottawa-Carleton the residents are as well protected as any other regional area, on the statistical compilation anyway. However, here we have a grant system which still says to Ottawa-Carleton, “We’re satisfied with the law enforcement setup that you have there. We’re not going to impose a regional police force on you. We think that the various police forces in Ottawa-Carleton are doing a good job, but we are going to punish you. All the other regional police forces are going to get $15 per capita, but Ottawa-Carleton will only get $10.”

I really think that’s unfair, in view of the fact that this minister, or at least his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) who has jurisdiction over the police, is not prepared to impose a regional police force in Ottawa-Carleton. Our forces there have had a few problems. For instance, some of you have heard about the mayor of Vanier. He ran into a little problem dealing with bodyrub clubs and that sort of thing, and the court process is now under way, but that doesn’t take away from the effectiveness of that particular force, the Vanier police department, or the Ottawa police department, or Gloucester or Nepean, and even the OPP who are patrolling that great area of Rockcliffe.

So I am saying, and I want to emphasize this again, I just can’t understand, and I would like some explanation from this minister, if the government or if he himself is satisfied with the type of policing that’s going on in Ottawa-Carleton -- and I can remember a succession of ministers saying that that was the case -- why is he penalizing Ottawa-Carleton and giving us only $10 when the regional police forces in other areas of the province are getting $15? I think it’s unfair, and I don’t think it is in keeping. I think it is inconsistent.

If the government feels that Ottawa-Carleton is, in fact, not doing a good job, or if it feels that in fact it is trying to encourage them to have a regional police force, then impose it on them. Don’t be inconsistent and say to them, on the one hand, “You are doing a good job, we see no reason to have a regional police force,” but on the other hand “We will penalize you because you don’t happen to have a regional force.”

[4:00]

I think it’s unfair. The residents of Ottawa-Carleton deserve better treatment than they’re getting from this government or this minister.

Mr. Makarchuk: I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention the other situation that was mentioned or alluded to by one of the speakers earlier this afternoon. This is a case in Brantford, which is not a regional municipality, however the city is situated in such a position in the county and the conditions being what they are in that county, the city provides most of the services that a regional municipality does. Because they are not organized into a regional municipality, they naturally are penalized.

Mr. Cunningham: No they are not.

Mr. Makarchuk: They are penalized in terms of grants. I’d like to point out to the minister that in this case the city provides most of the recreation facilities, all the library facilities, most of the sewage treatment plants, the transportation services, the social services, the Children’s Aid Society and the family service bureau as well as the municipal welfare services. The major hospitals are located in the community and three out of four of the high schools in the area are located in the community. The municipality also makes major contributions to the county road system.

In effect, what we have is that about two thirds of the people in that area living in the country are responsible for or provide the services for the other one-third who live in the surrounding townships as well as the communities.

What we have here in effect is a regional organization, because there are services within the community that are organized on a county-wide basis, but again the municipality does not receive these grants. For example the police grant, which is $10 to a municipality and $15 to a regional municipality.

I think the minister should look into this very seriously. If there is an existing local situation which seems to be working and there is a move within the county to try to iron out some of the problems that exist in that area, with the thought that perhaps some allowances should be made. In other words, we’re not asking for special treatment or more grants than somebody else. What we’re asking is that where the performance or the situation is what it is, we should at least get the grants that are paid to the regional municipalities.

It seems to me that unless these grants are increased to municipalities like Brantford, then what in effect the government is doing indirectly is forcing the municipality into some form of regionalism in order to bring about some equity in taxes, an equity in terms of paying for the services that are provided there so that the outlying townships will be contributing at least an equal amount as the city taxpayer. Indirectly what the minister is doing, as I said earlier, if he does not move in this direction, is forcing them into regionalism, which is rather a controversial thing as he well knows.

Instead of moving in that direction, I wonder if you would provide the grants to the municipality and allow them, with those increased grants, to try to work out their own restructuring, which is the direction they’re moving at this time. That is not asking for any special services or any grants greater than the minister is handing out to other municipalities. At the same time, what he will do is provide a certain sort of amicable solution to some of the problems on the local level.

Mr. Cunningham: I’d like to make a few comments on this Act to amend The Ontario Unconditional Grants Act as they relate to the particular region I live in. I want to say to the Treasurer that many of us would endorse the idea of pumping these grants into the municipalities to save the taxpayers from the tremendous increases that we are seeing. Right now in the township of Flamborough the average increase, I believe, will be somewhere in the area of 31 per cent, certainly far and above the AIB guidelines.

In fact, it was just last week that his friend and my friend, the mayor of the township of Flamborough, undertook to have an old-fashioned political meeting in the village of Waterdown to attempt to explain this 31 per cent increase in our taxes.

I must say I was somewhat sympathetic to the mayor in that I felt very sorry for him that he was being subjected to a great deal of disdain which I would say should be borne largely by the Treasurer and by the government party, because I think the difficulties we are experiencing in that particular area relate almost entirely to this inefficient system of regional government.

Certainly the taxpayers in my area are being penalized. They are being penalized in two particular ways: One is by accommodating, through their own personal municipal taxes, the inefficiency of regional government -- as taxpayers in the province of Ontario, they are also accommodating the various grants that are put in to keep regional government floating -- and, of course, the hidden cost that very few of us tend to appreciate, the cost of the civil servants in the province of Ontario who and designated to specifically address their concerns to the operation of regional government.

As the Treasurer may recall, through a speech in a previous budget debate, I did bring forth a number of advertisements for people who were going to be hired, I must say at rather significant salaries -- and the salaries were at the rates of two or three years ago -- and who would be charged with the responsibility of trying to make regional government work.

As the Treasurer well knows from comments that I have made and comments that my leader has made, as well as members of the third party in my particular area, our system of regional government is not working; and any harbouring of the illusion that we can continue to pump a great deal of money into that system and make it work, I think, is fallacious at best.

What I would suggest here is that we undertake to have a rather frank, candid and, if possible, non-partisan approach to this very serious problem so that we can examine not only the cost of regional government but the deterioration of services. I would say respectfully that, notwithstanding any in- creases to unconditional grants to my municipality, the people in my particular area, and more specifically in the outlying areas of the Hamilton-Wentworth region, would be very hard-pressed to continue to find money to pay for their municipal taxes. Their services continue to go down and their taxes continue to go up.

To that end, I also would make a comment on the transitional grant aspect of this legislation. The fact that we are limited to five years in the implementation of a regional system of government is disturbing to me because, regardless of whether the system is workable or not, one would think that it would take considerably longer than five years to determine that. In my area, unfortunately, the area does not recognize the community of interest; structurally, it is unsound and, I believe, will never work.

But to limit the extent of support from the province of Ontario to a region, to a period of five years, is blatantly unfair. Essentially, it is saying: “You are on your own now.” The citizens in the township of Flamborough, in the towns of Dundas and Ancaster, and certainly in the outlying areas of the member for Wentworth’s riding are paying through the nose. I want to say to the Treasurer at this particular point in time that it is unacceptable to them now and will be in the future if that situation isn’t corrected.

Mr. Davison: When I first laid eyes on this Bill 6, Mr. Speaker, it immediately struck me as something of a half measure. However, the more I examine it, the more I have to reassess that fraction downwards.

There can be no doubt that our municipalities are in serious financial trouble -- our regional municipalities, our towns, our villages and our cities. This bill does not go very far in solving those real financial problems. To solve those financial problems, we need some very serious and some very major legislative changes. But I am willing to support the bill on the fine principle that in principle a fraction of a loaf is better than none. However, I don’t think we should let the bill pass by us without taking the opportunity to offer a bit of constructive criticism.

The municipalities in Ontario aren’t in trouble financially because of mismanagement by regional councils or lack of attention to municipal problems by municipal councils. They are in serious financial problems because of the actions and the inaction of this government.

The list of failures on the part of the government runs a long way. It goes all the way through from the Edmonton commitment to regional government, to the failure to relieve the education tax burden. If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few comments; not on all the problems in all the municipalities in general, but rather a few observations on one of the problems in the regional municipality in which I live, that’s Hamilton-Wentworth. The problem I would use as an example would be regional government.

I hope you pay attention to that problem, and from beginning to understand that problem perhaps you can understand some of the methods you can use to solve the problems of finances at the municipal level.

Regional government has had an effect not only on financial problems and the finances of our regional municipality and the component municipalities. It has also had a tremendous impact on politics in Hamilton-Wentworth. You recall that in the election of 1971, which was the election preceding the implementation of regional government, the Conservative Party held two of the six seats in Hamilton-Wentworth. Then regional government entered the scene and in the next election Tory representation in the six seats fell from two to one. The regional government continued; the problems grew worse. What happened in the most recent election? Conservative representation fell to zero.

I am not suggesting that the government should have to feel upset about that situation. In fact, I don’t mind if you feel happy about losing the member from “Sanity Island”; it doesn’t make much difference. But what I think you should do is examine that and examine why you’ve managed to lose all of your seats in Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Peterson: The NDP almost lost you.

Mr. Davison: Not to a Tory.

Mr. Peterson: Heaven forbid.

Mr. Davison: Yes, I agree.

What the people were trying to tell you was something very simple. They were trying to tell it to you in the strongest terms that were available to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. After all, we are very peaceful people, not given to violence. When they turfed you out of that area they were telling you that they were upset, that they were discontented with regional government.

I don’t think you should make a mistake about the nature of that discontent. I am sure there will be all kinds of reasons and excuses offered. Perhaps it’s good for the people of Hamilton-Wentworth in more ways than one not to have a Conservative member, because now you are going to have to listen directly to the residents, the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth, without the message having to go through a Tory member and perhaps the message can come out a bit more clearly.

The citizens of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth are discontented because they understand very clearly that it takes more money to run the regional municipality than it took to run the previous system of local government. They are upset and they are discontented because in many ways services deteriorated under the regional system. The people of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth are further upset and discontented because they understand that your transitional grants are going to run out very quickly and once again they are going to have to assume a greater portion of the costs and they are going to have to have higher local taxes.

That’s the guts of the question -- that property tax on which we rely for municipal Funding. It’s not just simply a question of the government shifting more and more of the burden of municipal costs to the local taxpayer. It’s also a question of shifting more and more of the education tax burden to the taxpayer in Hamilton-Wentworth.

[4:15]

In the city of Hamilton, for example, in 1975 the provincial grants came to 49.4 per cent of the money spent. Now in 1977 it looks as if they are going to fall to about 40.8 per cent. That difference of over eight per cent has to be made up before we can even begin to deal with increased costs.

What that all means in terms of the taxpayer and the tax, is that it’s possible for a person in my riding to own a home worth less than $30,000 and pay in excess of $1,200 a year in property tax. That’s just nuts. The government has already got its hand as far as it can possibly go into the property taxpayer’s pocket and there is just no more money there for the local municipalities. That’s the problem the government has to be addressing itself to.

This Bill 6 just does not do the job. I understand the government is not pretending it does the job or is even supposed to do the job, but it’s just not going to have an effect on the spiralling property tax in the way that’s needed.

While it won’t relieve the problem, were going to support it because it is better than nothing. But if the government really wants to do something to be of assistance to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth would it please consider -- and I ask this of the Treasurer -- please consider an immediate review of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth from the operative, financial and structural points of view.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I will not be too long in addressing the Treasurer. As has been pointed out already by my colleague from Hamilton Centre, we will support this bill --

Mr. Cassidy: You could make your maiden speech on this subject.

Mr. Davidson: -- not because we feel it is solving the problem as it exists in Ontario today, but because we feel it is a matter of necessity that we take what little is offered rather than have nothing at all.

I would like also to address myself to those municipalities that have been regionalized over the past few years, particularly the area which I represent. As the members are aware, the riding of Cambridge is a part of the regional municipality of Waterloo. I think they will find also that the people of that area have been addressing themselves to this government in terms of dissatisfaction by means of the election process in the province.

It’s rather ironic that the riding of Cambridge, which prior to the 1975 election was called Waterloo South, had had for 24 years, as a sitting member of the Legislature, a Conservative member -- 12 years by Mr. Ray Myers, followed by 12 years of Mr. Allan Reuter, the former Speaker of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Peterson: Decent chaps both of them.

Mr. Davidson: One should have thought that with that kind of a record they should have won the 1975 election. I can assure the House that the reason they did not is primarily because of regional government and the additional costs that that form of government brought to the taxpayers within the municipalities. There are those who will argue, I suspect, from other parts of the region that the

section that I represent probably extracts more in terms of dollars from the region than any other municipality. Be that as it may, our municipality and our

section of that region, like all others, have found the increased taxes to the residents of that area are such that some people are even now finding it necessary to sell their homes. They can no longer maintain their homes because of the amounts of taxes that they are paying.

Like my colleague from Hamilton Centre, I would urge the Treasurer to give this matter serious consideration. We are having a review in Waterloo at this time. It’s an inbred review, if you care to call it that. It was, I guess, initiated by the council from the city in which I live, the city of Cambridge. The other members of the region saw fit to support that move, and there is a form of review taking place.

I’m not at all sure it’s going to be the in-depth kind of review that is going to be required to find out all of the ills of regional government in the province, and I would ask the Treasurer to give serious consideration to an in-depth study of regional government, not in only the Waterloo region but throughout the entire province. I think in doing so he may very well find some of the problems that are being brought about to the taxpayers, and perhaps with that kin