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

November 6, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L111 - Mon 6 Nov 1978 / Lun 6 nov 1978

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT ROUTES

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

TENANT LEGISLATION

RULES OF THE HOUSE

WASTE DISPOSAL

SCUGOG ZONING APPLICATION

BURGESS BATTERY PLANT

USE OF INSECTICIDES

PATIENT ABUSE

WASTE DISPOSAL

FIRESTONE TIRE HAZARD

VISITOR

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

RULES OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH RECORDS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain why confidential and detailed information on patients at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre were found in a garbage can and also strewn about Lakeshore Boulevard? Given the fact that we have already had the unseemly situation of confidential records in a parking lot and given the fact that one can hardly determine where they are next going to appear, according to what seems to be happening in front of the Krever inquiry, can the minister explain this event and tell us what steps are being taken to deal with this matter?

Can he find out why all the particular incidents that were related in this morning’s Sun seem to be injury-related matters? Is there some pattern here? Is there some particular reason why those records have found their way into the public eye as opposed to other records? What is his explanation for this matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I should tell the honourable member that I have as of last night and this morning ordered two investigations; one by my own staff in the ministry, which I ordered last evening as soon as I found out about these incidents. The second, which I asked for this morning, is a police investigation because there are several rather peculiar aspects of this incident.

First of all, there is the fact that the notes were found eight or nine miles away from the particular psychiatric facility in a garbage can which was overflowing and under a very bright street light. The second fact is that they were found in an envelope which was not the usual kind of envelope in which such notes, which are to be destroyed, are kept. These two things made me suspicious enough that I have asked for, and the chief of police has agreed to, an immediate police investigation which began this morning. There have been several meetings already with officials of my ministry. In fact, I understand the police are at Queen Street right now.

Until I have got the results of those investigations, I can’t fill in all of the details obviously. As regards why particular types of incidents were reported, I think one would have to speak to or address the editorial style perhaps because there were over 300 notes. I think what’s happened, which is something we get used to, is that they’ve picked out some of the things that make the best copy. But, I should point out they are not the clinical records nor part of the clinical records which are kept for each patient in a psychiatric facility.

They are the nurses’ notes and are not in any way involved with diagnoses and the indication of the prescribed regimens, as my honourable friend would have prescribed when he himself was practising in one of our psychiatric hospitals.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, accepting that it would appear that these are nurses’ notes, is the minister aware that normally there are two copies of those notes, one original and one copy? Apparently, at Queen Street a copy goes to the director of nursing and is shredded after a short period of time, but the other is kept on the ward and then sent to a compactor.

Can the minister explain why, in heaven’s name, both copies aren’t shredded, once they are no longer needed? What is the purpose of keeping around one copy and dealing with it differently?

And can he tell us exactly what directives went out from the ministry regarding the disposal of records of all kinds that refer to patients by name and to various procedures which may have occurred, even patient behaviour on the ward? What directive went out from the ministry after the last incident of such records flying about in the breeze in downtown Toronto? And why have those directives, if there are any, not been complied with in this case as far as he knows?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect to the copies, the copies which are kept in the nurses’ stations on the wards are disposed of by way of the compactor, within which they are mixed under very high pressure with the kitchen waste thereby, because of the things with which they are mixed and because of the pressure, making them illegible, so I am advised.

Several directives have gone out in the last year. I would remind members that in the last year we have changed the Mental Health Act with respect to records to try to tighten it up as much as the current state of the art would indicate we should.

As a result of one other incident involving a Toronto hospital, we have ensured that as far as the clinical records are concerned the destruction of copies is the same as for original records. The Leader of the opposition will know, perhaps as well or better than anyone in the House except perhaps the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta), that in the case of psychiatric clinical records very few are destroyed. They are kept a very long time. In fact, I am told we have records in some hospitals that are 100 years old. They are kept for historical purposes and for psychiatric research studies.

Also in the last year, we held several meetings with medical record librarians in psychiatric hospitals to ensure that our standards of practice are as thorough as possible. What I’m saying is that where a problem has been recognized, every reasonable step has been taken.

One of the reasons for appointing the Krever commission was our recognition, almost a year ago, that the problem is potentially very broad, given that we’re talking about literally millions of clinical records and various other forms of notes and files in all forms of health care facilities and that we’re talking about a system which employs over 100,000 people. In order for there to be the most thorough possible review so that every conceivable nook and cranny was looked into, we appointed the Krever commission.

In every instance where a problem has occurred, we tried to anticipate further problems, but certainly dealt with them expeditiously and thoroughly, either amending legislation as in the case of the Mental Health Act or in changing procedure.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: In replying to questions on a similar matter raised in June of this year, the minister indicated that he or members of his ministry had sent a letter to all hospitals. Could we have a copy of that letter? I understood at that time he was also issuing guidelines to the hospitals. Could we see that?

Does he now feel it’s time to close the loophole in his regulations about copies of records as opposed to original records?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The whole of regulation 729 affecting public hospitals is under review. The gentleman who is in charge of that has submitted his final report. Now it’s into the policy-making process within the ministry. That includes the question of all the sections of regulation 729 dealing with the confidentiality of records within public hospitals.

On February 28, even before Bill 19 was reintroduced and subsequently passed, a memorandum did go to all administrators of psychiatric hospitals dealing with clinical records, saying in effect, “This is what is going to be in the bill, but until it becomes law you should assume that it’s going to be law anyway and just do it.”

Mr. Breaugh: Can we have a copy of that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sure. When you get into the notes kept by various professionals throughout the hospital system then it’s perhaps a slightly different matter.

In discussing it with my officials last evening and throughout the morning and early afternoon, it would appear that this has not been a problem in the past. It has not even been identified as a potential problem. Depending on the outcome of this investigation it may require further changes but I’ll make that determination and those recommendations that may follow once I’ve got the results of our own internal investigation and the police investigation.

If mischief has been involved, then that could conceivably change it considerably.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Breaugh: Could I ask one final supplementary On this?

Mr. Speaker: I have no objections to a supplementary, but I must remind the honourable member we’ve spent nine minutes on this question and I would implore the questioners and the minister to be a little bit more crisp in the answer.

Mrs. Campbell: We can’t be crisp with the answers.

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT ROUTES

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll direct my second question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Given the possibility that Torontonians may be hit by higher transit fares at some point this year or next and given the need for funds at that level and for that purpose, what kind of justification can he produce for his recommendation that millions of dollars of provincial and federal money be spent on an intermediate capacity transit route between Union Station and the CNE, which would rank, I imagine, around 50th on a list of 49 TTC priorities?

Given the need for funds for transit in Toronto, how does he justify trying to direct tens of millions of dollars into this experimental route between Union Station and the Canadian National Exhibition?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware that this was a proposal put forward by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation for the installation of two possible revenue systems for the intermediate-capacity transit system, one in the city of Toronto and one in the city of Hamilton.

There has been considerable interest shown by a number of people, including --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hamilton’s excited about it.

Mr. Nixon: They are an excitable group over there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, aren’t they, though.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- municipal representatives from the city of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s where you can build a convention centre as long as it views Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation and Communications has a right to be heard.

Mr. S. Smith: Not by the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the Premier would quit interrupting my answer --

Mr. MacDonald: He’s bigger than you are, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Much.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I am sure the honourable member knows, this was a proposal which my late colleague, the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, and I put forward to the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce; it was the recommendation of that federal minister’s task force on transit that this type of system be funded jointly, not only as a transportation project but also as an industrial sector project to create and foster new development, new industries and new jobs. It was on this basis that it has been suggested.

We have had considerable interest shown by elected representatives and others in both Toronto and Hamilton regarding this proposal. There has been no decision made. I have not yet heard back from Mr. Horner, although he has stated he is considering the proposal.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Assuming the minister must be well aware that the Toronto Transit Commission would rather have the money spent in countless other ways than on this wild experiment, but dealing with the matter in Hamilton: Why was there no consultation with the people responsible for transportation and rapid transit in Hamilton before the announcement was made? Why, for example, has a map been drawn up with a proposed line that this UTDC equipment would take?

Would the minister not agree that, if local transit authorities are to have any meaning at all, they ought to be consulted before priorities are set for them by him in some fanciful way to test out some new equipment?

Does he not agree that Hamilton must be free to determine the precise route, location and the type of equipment used, and not be pressured in any way by the provincial government’s desires in this concern?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would almost totally agree with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition.

As I mentioned in my remarks at the opening of the UTDC centre in Kingston, these two suggestions, among others, were put forward by UTDC; and I had written to Mr. Horner suggesting those. The senior people in Hamilton and Toronto had been advised these studies had gone on.

But I also stated at that time that no decision was made, and whether these facilities were built in either Hamilton or Toronto would depend upon decisions of the locally elected people. I don’t think there is any problem with that.

The city of Hamilton met with me about two weeks ago, and I understand they have asked UTDC to work with their local transit people in discussing possible routes and whether the one UTDC has suggested is a possible alternative or whether there are other possible better alignments. This is the type of consultation that’s going on at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Since this discussion is almost a precise replay of what we went through in this House five years ago, when the government brought down the Krauss-Maffei scheme and had proposals for its introduction into Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton, and since the government at that time, as the minister is doing today, started to back and fill and say “We’re adaptable and we’re adjustable” when questions arose about the project, will the minister table any feasibility studies of these two proposed lines which were prepared by the ministry or by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation?

Will he tell the House now what those studies, if they exist, show about the feasibility and about the level of operating cost deficits that will have to be paid by the local transit authorities if those particular lines are built?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there have been no studies, proposals or reports by the ministry on those two suggested locations. The studies that have been carried out have been done by UTDC staff, who I understand have looked at numerous possible applications of the intermediate capacity transit system and have suggested that probably the two most appropriate in Canada are the proposals for Hamilton and Toronto.

I believe my estimates start in committee tomorrow evening. I am sure that during consideration of the estimates the committee members will wish to deal with UTDC. Mr. Foley and his officials will be there. I will certainly make him aware of the desire of the leader of the third party to have copies of those reports. I am sure we can get them for him.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why he is willing to spend $73 million of Ontario money on these somewhat unusual and experimental lines and then ask the federal government for another $62 million -- which is apparently what he has done -- without even consulting the people of Hamilton or the Toronto Transit Commission beforehand? And is he prepared to spend this kind of money on conventional transit if Toronto and Hamilton so desire it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we are also very interested in conventional transit. I believe we have met the needs of both Hamilton and Toronto as well as those of some 50 other communities in the province which have established systems. Basically, over the years, since the ministry started funding capital and operating costs of local transit, we have met the needs of the municipalities throughout the province.

Taking into consideration the budgetary restraints in all aspects of my ministry, we have still been able to meet our 75 per cent share of the cost of Metro Toronto’s transit expansion program. We have done that each year for the last number of years and we hope to continue to do it.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary; the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In other words, from the answers we have heard today, we should understand that while the minister is prepared to spend $73 million on some kind of experiment, he is not willing to increase the paltry 13.5 per cent share of transit operational expenses in Metro Toronto, thereby guaranteeing a fare increase for transit riders in Toronto next year. Is that correct?

Mr. S. Smith: They’ll pay more for transit but, boy, will they have a good time at the CNE!

Mr. Nixon: The trees are just starting to grow there since it was defoliated by the Transit Man of the Year of 1959.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of 1959? You’re 12 years out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere refers to the provincial subsidy of the TTC as a paltry sum. As I recall, it is something in the neighbourhood of about $30 million or more per year.

Mr. Warner: It’s 13.5 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s 13.75 per cent of the total operating costs of the TTC. In addition to that, the formula provides for additional operating grants, for instance for expansion of service, for the start-up of the new Spadina subway --

Mr. Warner: You are not going to increase it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- which brings their actual subsidies to something, I believe, close to 15 per cent of their operating costs.

Mr. Warner: You are not going to increase it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe one must take into consideration the funds that are so scarce today, the funds that are available, and which must be spread around to other municipalities. Our formula takes into consideration the size of the municipality involved, and I think it is quite fair and reasonably well accepted by the transit community other than one or two in the TTC who love to complain about anything. If they were more efficient, more interested in dealing with some of their own problems and operating a little more efficient system, maybe they could be more productive in that way.

Mr. McClellan: Never mind the gratuitous insults.

Mr. Warner: Don’t give them money but attack them. It is a wonder you have any friends left.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact it is now nearly two weeks since the minister promised to fight like hell for the survival of the whole island constituency when he met with his constituents on Toronto Island, can the minister tell the House what he has managed to accomplish by way of agreement between the province and Metropolitan Toronto? Alternatively, what has he accomplished by way of legislation in order to save the island homes in the community there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you still living there, Michael?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d be happy to dwell at length on the substantial work that I have done on behalf of constituents.

Mr. Deans: The people would like to dwell at length on the island.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: However, as I understand question period, I’m only entitled to be asked about questions relating to my own ministry. I would be happy to expand later outside the House.

Mr. McClellan: How come you always have to fight the government for your constituents? Why is the government always picking on your riding?

Mr. Cassidy: I would ask that the question be referred to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you own a house on the island, Michael?

An hon. member: He’s out in Forest Hill now. He’s been fighting like hell with the town. Asks them to go out in the park and kick the people out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can substantiate the statement that the honourable member for that area is fighting like hell for those constituents of his who are on the island --

Mr. Martel: Watch the language, will you? What is the matter with you?

Mr. Warner: Everyone fights with you, even your own member.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The government is very concerned with the people who live on the island --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you lay off St. Andrew-St. Patrick for a while?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- as I think I said in my answer to a question about this matter some time ago. We must remember however that this is a matter of local autonomy, and that the metropolitan council has control over these matters.

An hon. member: The Paul Godfrey economy.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you guys sell the islands to the Americans?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I remind you that Metropolitan Toronto council could probably hold a meeting very shortly and decide to completely reverse the kind of action that it has been embarking upon for the last couple of years. It does have that power. In the interval, we are working with them to see what can be done to help the situation on Toronto Island.

Mr. McClellan: Help Larry out.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and I put this supplementary with some regret: Is the minister by his reference to local autonomy maintaining or refusing to confirm the commitment that he made to this House two weeks ago? This was, at least as far as the long-term residents were concerned, that he felt they should be able to stay. He made a commitment to ensure that they would be able to do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I completely stand by that commitment. I have been working with the people of Metro and particularly the chairman to see if we can’t find some way to cause that commitment to come about. I am just pointing out to you that it is now under existing legislation, a matter of their jurisdiction and their concern.

The member tells us about local autonomy every now and then, and this is one of those areas --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Seven days a week.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- where the autonomy really rests with the elected people of metropolitan council.

However, notwithstanding that, we are working with them to see if we can’t help bring some solution to this matter. I stand behind the commitment I made.

Mrs. Campbell: I wonder if the minister could advise the House as to whether he has had any discussions at all with the regional conservation authority to ascertain the legality of Metropolitan Toronto’s position vis-à-vis that authority and its rights and responsibilities with reference to the islands?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I have not had any discussions with them about the matter. I thought Toronto Island was a metropolitan Toronto park.

[2:30]

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the commitment made by the Minister of Industry and Tourism as member for the area that “I am not in the business of bargaining away people’s homes,” that is, he was not prepared to make a distinction between long term residents and more recent residents, is it now the government’s position that it wishes to see a firm agreement which will protect the entire community and not just a portion of it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will continue to discuss this with the Metro people and see what kind of solution to this problem can be worked out. But I am not prepared to make any specific assurance beyond what I said the other day -- there are certain long term residents and people over there, who should be supported in their demand to be able to stay there.

TENANT LEGISLATION

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) that he would prefer not to see any extension of the present rent review bill passed November 30, even though he saw it might be needed because of the legislation, could the Premier look at the problem entailed by trying to consider this legislation in a period of only two weeks from November 14, when it will receive second reading? Will he consider the complexity of the changes being made in the legislation?

Would the government agree in advance, not at the penultimate hour, that the present rent review bill be extended for a sufficient length of time so the new bill can have adequate consideration in a committee, so public interest groups, both landlord and tenants, can have a look at the bill and comment on it and come before hearings in a rational, reasonable kind of way, and the new bill can then take effect early in the New Year?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You had all summer.

Mr. S. Smith: We can even have time for dinner.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government does everything in a reasonable, rational way and the handling of the rent review legislation will be no exception.

Mr. Foulds: Are you sure, with that minister?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, the government’s rationality depends on the degree of rationality shown by some members opposite.

Mr. Foulds: And the minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I listened to the minister the other day when pressed on this subject by one of the member’s colleagues, as they were solving the socialistic problems of the universe out west with the member’s empire slowly diminishing as enlightenment comes to many other parts of the globe besides Canada.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Supporting violence, really.

Mr. Wildman: Like Chile, you mean?

Mr. Deans: You are not doing too well yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean, we are not doing too well ourselves?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with rent review.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A small “c” conservative administration in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What more does the member want? A by-election in Chatham-Kent. How much more does he want in any given month?

Mr. Cunningham: Where is the member now?

Mr. Speaker: As I recall the question was something to do with rent review legislation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker, it was rent review.

The minister said that the preference of the government is to move expeditiously and reasonably. We don’t want to be forced -- what hour was it? -- rather late in the game at least, into extending the existing legislation. I have always found the New Democratic Party, if they had the inclination, had the ability to digest the legislation, deal with it reasonably and rationally, and they could do it expeditiously.

Mr. Warner: Always.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This matter has been discussed now for some months and the desire of the minister, and certainly the government, is to move the process ahead. Knowing the co-operative way in which the leader of the New Democratic Party deals with all issues, I am sure his members will deal with it in this fashion in the House and, in the interests of the tenants, the landlords and the total community, we can have a final solution and the bill passed prior to the date mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Laughren: Dreamer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, if you want to frustrate everybody else here in the House --

Mr. Martel: You determined when the House came back, you were warned.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- if the member wants to keep the program entailed in that legislation away from the tenants, that is a decision his people will have to make.

Mr. Warner: It’s a cute game you are playing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I think, given a little co-operation, we can get that legislation through --

Mr. Martel: That’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in a way that will serve the public interest, which is our concern as much as the member’s.

Mr. Warner: We should have been sitting in September, by the way.

Mr. Mattel: We should have been back on October 10. We were ready on October 10.

Mr. Cassidy: I thank the Premier for his reference to the Socialist International because I had the pleasure of meeting people from socialist governments in the countries of Scandinavia, West Germany, Austria --

An hon. member: Where you borrow your money from.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your comments may be supplementary to those of the Premier’s but they’ve got nothing to do with the original question.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought it was worth noting.

As a supplementary, I would ask the Premier is he not aware that in view of the very major changes which are being introduced in the legislation, it would be next to impossible for representatives of tenants or of landlords to both prepare their comments and submit them to the committee, if the legislation is to go through committee over the course of only three or four sessions in the latter part of this month and then be enacted before November 30?

In view of that difficulty of any outside contribution, will the Premier not show sufficient flexibility that outside groups can comment on the legislation, rather than having it imposed upon them or brought to bear upon them without any opportunity of participation?

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no.

Mr. Rotenberg: We had all the comments last summer. How many comments do you want on it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I must say it’s the first occasion in this House where I have been asked by the impartial adjudicator of discussions here to answer a question that a member has posed. Mr. Speaker, I know that you wouldn’t really want me to answer --

Mr. Speaker: I’m just trying to be helpful with regard to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I knew you were trying to be helpful, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly need all the help you can give me. But I’ve got to tell you that there are some in this House who need a lot more than I do.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to that question, I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, in reference to his supplementary observations to my supplementary observations which were out of order, I’m as flexible as anyone I know.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now there is a real statement of principle.

Mr. Peterson: There is a great Canadian.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There’s a great Canadian. That’s quite right and it would take the member for London Centre to really understand that. I won’t even bring his father-in-law into it today because he can identify it even better than the member can. Seriously, though, I think we should make every effort to pass the legislation, nothing being flexible or inflexible. I think the members of this House -- certainly his own caucus -- are familiar with it and are in a position to make certain judgements. That’s what they’ve been elected to do and that’s part of their responsibility. I think this House should make an effort to have that legislation passed prior to our prorogation in December.

Mr. Martel: The bill has to be done by November 30.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind all members of the House that we’ve spent 33 minutes on the four questions of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, plus the supplementaries. I’ll now recognize the Minister of the Environment who has the answer to questions previously asked, followed by the Minister of Government Services.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, a moment ago you brought to the attention of the leader of the third party that his question was not supplementary. I draw to your attention that on page 18 of the standing orders it says: “A reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of the minister’s reply to an oral question may be asked by any members.”

If you’re concerned about the direction of the question period, I believe that the rules require you to call to order those people answering the questions rather than those asking them in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I was attempting to do that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked me some questions concerning the action of the town council of Fort Erie in an application by Laidlaw Transport of Hamilton. In the first part of that question, he implied that the ministry had been derelict in its duties in not getting the town and the industry together. I’m afraid that’s just not so. The ministry indeed was quite responsible for the initial contact and made a fair amount of effort thereafter.

The regional director, I believe, met with the parties four times and supplied whatever information was required. Then in a conversation subsequently, I found out that my predecessor (Mr. McCague) had himself met with the parties and had discussed it with the mayor. So there was a good deal of effort on our part to bring that information to the parties.

With respect to not attending that particular meeting, we were asked to attend but, as the leader might recall, we had committee meetings that week and I asked that all the regional directors be here. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that it was impossible for our director to be at that meeting. We thought it was very important that he attend the committee meetings here. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the staff had been most co-operative. I hope that the leader might concur.

Now if I might I’d like to read more specifically my reply to the question of indemnification as it is to this point in time. The ministry has not and likely will not provide any form of indemnification to a municipality locating waste-disposal facilities within its borderlines. Such a policy would create a precedent for which there is no discernible end. It is thought there is adequate provision in the Environmental Protection Act to correct or to avoid any unacceptable situation resulting from location of such a facility. Also, the municipality could request the company to post an adequate security bond.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Given the fact that this solidification process is terribly important in the future handling of toxic liquid industrial waste, a matter which seems to be without reasonable policy at the moment in Ontario, how does the minister accept the priorities of the regional director in that instance, on the very evening of the council meeting, to be present at these committee hearings to sit there rather than to be at the Fort Erie council meeting?

Even if he decided to be here rather than to be in Fort Erie, why did he send no substitute to answer questions of the individual councillors who were not, in fact, involved in the previous discussions and who had the crucial answer to give? How does he expect municipalities to accept this kind of risky venture that they understand poorly, if, in fact, the ministry is not prepared to help them in terms of some form of protection in the event of difficulties which will cost them money well above their budget?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I suggest with respect that’s just a rehash of the original question. I attempted to answer that question.

Mr. S. Smith: Why no substitute? Why didn’t the minister send someone?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I put on the record, indeed, that this ministry and my predecessor had given a great deal of assistance to the municipality and to the industry to bring those parties together and to assist them prior to that meeting. Certainly we weren’t there, because it was very important that our regional director be here --

Mr. S. Smith: Bunk.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- to give that information to committee meetings. That seems reasonable and anything more I can say is simply a repeat of what I’ve said previously.

Mr. S. Smith: Bungled an opportunity there.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has indicated he’s not prepared to add anything further.

SCUGOG ZONING APPLICATION

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 2, the member for Oshawa questioned the Premier of this province re a land severance. He quoted Mr. Charles J. Rush; we have it as Mr. Carl J. Rush, in the township of Scugog.

Mr. Breaugh: But it is not a severance yet. There is another one coming for that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: When the land was acquired by Mr. Carl J. Rush and when the application to the municipality was made, the official plan of the area did not prohibit the severance. A minor variance which was approved by the Lake Scugog committee of adjustment for the 10-acre lot was stated prior to the modification of the official plan. While the minor variance was appealed by the region to the Ontario Municipal Board, this appeal had been withdrawn. It was not disputed that the parcel of land was of little agricultural value and the applicant proposed to develop it for a residence. The answer is that the application was previous to the official plan which has been spoken of quite loudly.

[2:45]

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, the question on Thursday related to two matters; one was an application for an official plan amendment and a zoning bylaw change; and that, of course, was denied by the municipality, by the region and by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Can the minister explain to this House why, in the case of the Toronto Islands, he is so concerned about local autonomy and he is not prepared to interfere but, in the case of poor little Scugog township, the entire cabinet turns against them? Why are they doing that?

Some hon. members: Out of order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member apparently is not aware that the application for the minor variance was previous to the official plan, and the official plan actually was retroactive legislation on this piece of property. That is the reason cabinet dealt with it as it did.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister is very well aware of all the circumstances in this case. It appears to me, though, that the minister is not aware that he recommended to cabinet -- and cabinet approved -- an order of council directing the township of Scugog to change the zoning bylaw and its official plan, and that Mr. Rush sought a writ of mandamus before a Supreme Court judge last Tuesday and has not yet been granted that. The minister should be further aware that this little rural municipality intends to take on whether or not this cabinet can order the township’s business.

Mr. Pope: He just gave you the answer.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member apparently must not have been listening to my answer. My answer, again --

Mr. Breaugh: Why are you trying to pound Scugog township? Leave them alone.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My answer, again, was that this application for the minor variance was previous to the official plan amendment and was approved by the committee of adjustment of the township of Scugog. That is the reason we dealt with it as we did.

Mr. Lewis: Vilification. The entire resources of government are descending on Scugog township.

Mr. Breaugh: What’s the matter with the cabinet?

Mr. Lewis: Where among you is there a defender of Scugog?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: O, what a rogue and peasant slave.

Mr. Breaugh: They don’t understand this campaign against Scugog township.

Hon. W. Newman: We understand it a lot more than you ever will.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

BURGESS BATTERY PLANT

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if we can move from Lake Scugog to that beautiful community of Niagara Falls: On Monday, the member for Niagara Falls asked several questions regarding the closing of the Burgess battery plant in Niagara Falls.

The Burgess division of Gould Manufacturing of Canada Limited has given notice that it will close completely on or about December 22, 1978. Production at the plant will continue until that closure date. This closure affects about 72 employees, 41 of whom are hourly workers represented by the International Molders’ and Allied Workers’ Union.

The employees were informed of the impending closure on October 27. Some of the employees may be retained until June 30, 1979, to assist in the winding down of the company’s operation.

The Burgess plant manufactures dry carbon-zinc batteries. Officials of the company have stated that the battery division has become uneconomical due to cheaper imports and stiffer competition for more expensive but longer-lasting alkaline batteries.

I have been advised that the company will take whatever measures it can to assist workers affected by the closure. Officials of my ministry also spoke to the plant chairman of the union local, who expressed little surprise at the announcement of the closure. He also expressed hope that the government could assist in some way, and to that end he is now in contact with officials of my ministry’s employment adjustment service.

Although Gould Manufacturing also has plants in St. Thomas and in Fort Erie, these are separate divisions of the company and will not be affected by the Niagara Falls closing.

Regarding the member’s second question, batteries will not be imported from the United States to take the place of the product currently being manufactured in Niagara Falls. In fact, Gould Manufacturing sold the American-based Burgess division about four years ago; so there is no plant in the United States under the control of Gould Incorporated.

Finally, in connection with the member’s suggestion that I consult the Ministry of Industry and Tourism regarding keeping the plant functioning, I have been informed that the ministry has been in contact with the company all along, offering its assistance.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I would draw to his attention the one concern that I had, and it relates to the federal government not agreeing to allow a sale of that plant some two years ago. At that time, I was quite concerned that there might be a change of Canadian ownership to American ownership, but it seems it was a change from one American owner to another American owner. At this stage of the game, if there is still a willing seller and a willing buyer, I wonder whether something might not be done to change the ownership of that company to have it continue producing.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Actually as I understand it, the Gould corporation sold the American plant about four years ago and then had initiated a contract to sell the three Canadian plants and that sale was blocked by FIRA. It’s my present information that there is no planned sale.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has another answer to a question asked previously.

Some hon. members: Not again.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, that is ridiculous.

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: You asked the question.

Mr. Lewis: But we don’t expect the answer.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Come on, you always get the answers.

Mr. Speaker: Time is being wasted.

USE OF INSECTICIDES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I didn’t answer the other question at the same time but I needed my confrere, the Minister of Labour, to answer the second part of it and that’s why I didn’t rise at that time.

In reply to a question by the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor) with reference to organo-phosphorous insecticides, I would like to report that there are regulations, both in Ontario and Canada, to control these pesticides. Our Pesticides Advisory Committee has done research on it. As a matter of fact we are going to do some more and I will be glad to send those details to the member. They are quite technical.

I think the Minister of Labour will respond to the portion of the question that dealt with the protection of the workers.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Studies have been carried out on residents and workers in the Holland Marsh area to determine if there has been any overexposure to organo-phosphorous insecticides. The findings of these studies do not indicate any overexposure. Our special studies and services branch has an interest in this matter and are continuing to observe it and carry out further studies.

PATIENT ABUSE

Mr. Blundy: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Now that allegations of outrageous patient abuse in provincial institutions are becoming more numerous and more public, will the minister undertake a public inquiry to investigate the conditions that allow patient abuse to occur?

Mr. Deans: Didn’t the minister say he would? I thought I heard him say he would.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As the honourable member knows, very significant efforts are being made at the present time by the ministry to explore the extent of abuse that may he taking place in the provincial facilities. I suppose the story that gave rise to the question is one on which we are already following up. We are not aware of the identity of the person who was interviewed by the media in that particular case, nor are we particularly seeking the source by name.

I have asked if it would be possible to contact the reporters and have them, in turn, contact the person they interviewed and ask that that person communicate directly with us so that we may assure, if that information is at all accurate, it is information being followed up upon already or so we could pursue it further.

I am not at this point convinced that there is need for a full-scale inquiry. There has been a considerable amount of information brought forward to us in the last few weeks, or a little longer, by various employees and former employees of the ministry. I can assure the honourable member that whenever such information has been brought to our attention, it is promptly followed up upon and in fact in one case is the subject of a police investigation at the present time.

Mr. Bluntly: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does not the fact the minister alluded to more information being brought forth by employees and former employees indicate to the minister how worried the people of Ontario and particularly the relatives of the patients in these institutions are? They must be very, very worried and I would think that this would prompt the minister to have an inquiry that would find out all the facts and be able to quieten the fears of the people who are expressing fears today.

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all, I am quite sure that there are many concerned people both within this Legislature and people across the province and especially those who have children or relatives who are resident in facilities. I don’t think one ought to seize on those situations to create undue alarm. It would be more reassuring to those people who have concern to know that we are acting as quickly and as decisively as possible whenever such information comes to our attention, rather than embarking on an inquiry at this point in time, which in itself may resolve little or nothing.

The way to resolve these problems as they exist is to act firmly and decisively as soon as the information is available. An inquiry may have some educative value in terms of the general public, in terms of the extent of the problem if it is more extensive than we are currently aware, but I am not sure it would resolve their concerns. Prompt, decisive action is the way to resolve it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the Minister of the Environment aware that we now have before us, either by way of statements acknowledged as true or by rumour, either of which is important, suggestions of burned waybills, illegal trucking, the establishment of new waste treatment facilities for whom no one appears to be answerable, the mixing of liquid industrial sludge with normal refuse which is now being burned, the spreading of liquid waste from a ruptured holding tank all over the surrounding ground area?

There is a reasonable expression of concern by any number of the residents immediately adjacent to the area of the Upper Ottawa Street dump, which the Leader of the Opposition and I raised previous to this day.

Given that these things are now causing widespread concern, would the minister consider conducting a full investigation into the operations of the dump, into the trucking and the liquids being taken into the dump, into the method of disposing of those liquids, into the hazards to health of the residents and to those downstream from the Redhill Creek within the next two or three weeks, reporting back to this House on whether or not it is necessary to take some action in addition to the actions currently being taken by the ministry to safeguard the people and the area?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I was surprised, to say the least, to hear the member suggest he was not concerned that some of those statements were rumours, that there is very little difference between rumours and facts.

Mr. Deans: I said they are both factual and rumour.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a great deal of difference between a statement --

Mr. Deans: Harry, deal with the question and stop skirting it. You can’t win that way.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer is no, I will not have a full-scale investigation into that dump, if that’s what the member wants to know.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister, then condone --

Mr. Yakabuski: Rumours, rumours.

Mr. Deans: -- those things which have been acknowledged as being true, in terms of the operations of that dump? Does he believe it appropriate that they should pump out that ruptured tank all over the ground surrounding the tank? Does he believe it appropriate that they should burn that sludge with all the other waste --

Mr. Yakabuski: The TV cameras are going off. Settle down.

Mr. Dean: -- without any consideration of the air pollution or the effect on the surrounding neighbourhood? Does the minister believe it appropriate that there should have been a burning of the weigh-scale records in that dump? Does he think it right that the city of Hamilton should have truckers bringing waste in there from other parts of the province without receiving approval from his ministry? Does he, in fact, stand up and say that what is going on in that dump is right and appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The very point I was about to make, which the member didn’t want to hear, is that much of what he said is factually incorrect. Some of it is correct.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He is consistent, anyway.

Mr. Swart: Why don’t you investigate it then?

Hon. Mr. Patron: I am not going to try to answer all those questions with a simple yes or no. That isn’t possible. We are aware of a great deal of what is going on and are taking action on it.

Mr. Deans: On what?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We are taking a great deal of action on liquid industrial waste, and we have a plan to deal with it. I met this morning to do so, and I will continue to do so. That is my highest possible priority. We’re going to get after that problem. We are in the process of doing it right now. We have projects under way. The classification system will be here within a matter of days. The waybill system is going to be changed in a matter of days. Those things are under way right now.

[3:00]

Mr. Warner: We’ll believe it when we see it.

Mr. Deans: What did I say that is not correct?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Would the minister undertake to respond to this House in detail to the allegations made by the member for Wentworth and tell us which of his allegations were correct and which were not, according to his factual investigation?

Mr. Deans: They’re all correct.

Mr. S. Smith: Furthermore, can the minister explain why it is that the general manager of Interflow, the company through which one suspects some of this liquid waste from outside Hamilton is finding its way into the Ottawa Street site, said that 60 per cent of the waste handled by the company’s transfer facility come from outside Hamilton and yet the PR person now says only 32 per cent comes from outside Hamilton?

Is it not a fact that Interflow is licensed as a transfer station, in which case can he explain the comment of his regional director, who says: “The sludge from Interflow can be regarded as having been generated in Hamilton because it’s a recycling facility?” Exactly what is the gallonage that has gone into Interflow? What is the gallonage that has come out of Interflow as so-called recycled materials, and what is the so-called sludge that has ended up in Hamilton, basically from origins outside?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will have an answer tomorrow to the Interflow question that was posed last week, Mr. Speaker. I had planned to do that prior to the question, and I will be pleased to do so. I think the Leader of the Opposition in asking the question made the point, at one time we heard it was 65 per cent, then we hear it’s 32 per cent. That’s precisely the point I was making to the honourable member -- not all statements that you read are factually correct.

Mr. S. Smith: They both come from Interflow.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With respect, I think many of the statements of the honourable member are not necessarily factually correct and I’ll be glad to put that on the record.

Mr. Deans: You can’t hide behind your portfolio for ever. You’re dead wrong. You don’t care about those people. You are hand in hand with the industry. That is what is wrong with you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I want to hear only one person and that’s the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

FIRESTONE TIRE HAZARD

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it’s probably the first time in this history of this House that the turbulence has been caused by someone besides me. I must say I enjoy it.

In answer to a question on Friday by the member for Welland-Thorold -- and I certainly hope he repeats my answer today a little bit better than what I heard him say on the radio a few moments ago -- concerning the matter of the recall of tires from the Firestone company, my ministry has spoken to the Firestone company. The only delay in the recall of the tires and the uncertainty in Canada concerns logistics. They’re trying to match up the code numbers with whoever bought them.

In the event that they cannot, and bearing in mind the fact that mails are almost undeliverable in Canada, if any owner of the particular brand of Firestone tires wants them recalled, if they do not have a letter from the Firestone company within three weeks from today telling them where to take their tires, then they can come to any one of the consumer offices in Ontario or use the toll-free number and this government will process them. I hope the member repeats that a little bit better than he did Friday.

Mr. Martel: Can we take them to your office, Frank? Take them all to 555 Yonge Street? Dump them right in your office?

Mr. Swart: Perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations would be good enough to send me the detailed information on that, because it was my understanding that I’ve given him substantial credit and thought he would follow it up diligently. However, I do want to put a supplementary to him and it is this --

Mr. Speaker: You used up your time in making a statement.

An hon. member: That’s not fair.

Mr. Speaker: The question period began at 2:03. The member had about 30 seconds when he got up to put a supplementary and he used that time to make a statement.

We’ll entertain the question tomorrow.

The time for oral questions has expired.

VISITOR

Mr. MacBeth: May I draw the attention of the House to a visitor in our gallery to the right -- a farmer who has his crops all in for the winter and is looking for a place to keep dry and warm, a former chairman of the water resources commission -- the former member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, John Root.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 129, 130 and 131 standing on the notice paper.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Peterson: It is my understanding that we’re going into the estimates for the new Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. I would like your thoughts on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Legislatively, that ministry has not yet been created. There’s been no division of the ministry from the TEIGA ministry. Indeed, the Treasury and Economics bill has not yet been finalized by -- had third reading -- in this House. I ask for your direction, Mr. Speaker.

It seems to me we’re in a weird procedure here when we’re asking for supply for a ministry that has not been created. And it’s being asked for by a minister who has not been delegated or given real responsibility by this House. I frankly don’t know how that could come about under the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker: All I can tell you is that the order of estimates is agreed to in advance, with the unanimous approval of the House leaders. If you will see Votes and Proceedings of --

Mr. Nixon: You’re not supposed to take any notice of those agreements.

Mr. Speaker: -- Friday, November 3, it says: “Resolved, that the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs now before the House be considered by the House as estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs as set out in the following schedule.” That was moved by Mr. McCague and seconded by Mr. Welch and it had unanimous approval of the House.

Mr. Peterson: I’d like to speak to that, if I may, because I think it’s an important point. I don’t accept the principle that the House leaders, even with universal accord --

Mr. Foulds: It passed with the unanimous consent of this House.

Mr. Peterson: -- can pervert the rules of this House or do something that appears to me, at least on the face of it, to fly in the face of what is sensible and reasonable.

Mr. Rotenberg: Where were you on Friday when it was passed in this House?

Mr. Peterson: How can we discuss estimates of a ministry that has not been created? That, very simply, is the point.

You reply that the House leaders have given unanimous approval.

Mr. Speaker: The House leaders may not be supreme but certainly this House is. They’ve acted upon it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman: Before commencing the business of this committee I’d like to draw to its attention the report of the procedural affairs committee which was adopted on April 25, 1978. By this report I was instructed by the House to allow latitude to critics while speaking to vote 1, item 1, and thereafter I’m expected to adhere strictly to the particular vote and item under consideration.

I wish to advise the committee at this time that I would do my best to enforce this order of relevancy as strictly as possible in the hope that the examination of these estimates will be orderly and the time fairly distributed to all members of the committee.

Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In presenting for the first time the spending estimates of the new Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, I’m asking the Legislature to approve the expenditure of almost $512 million for the fiscal year 1978-79. Because this ministry is new, I believe that it is important at this time to give the members of this House some kind of an outline about the role and scope of the ministry.

I know as we move through the debate we’ll no doubt be discussing many of the individual items which make up the $512 million total, but I think to provide an overall context I’d like to, first of all, paint a very broad picture.

To begin with, I think it might be useful to describe in very general terms how the total ministry budget is allocated. Of the $512 million total budget, $485 million, or 94.8 per cent, is for transfer payments to municipalities including both unconditional and special grants; $15.5 million, or three per cent, is for the Ontario Youth Employment Program; $8.4 million, or 1.6 per cent, is for operational and administrative expenses, and the remaining $3.3 million, or 0.6 per cent, is for a variety of special programs, including property tax credits for senior citizens, disaster relief, shoreline property assistance and so on.

Mr. Lewis: What shoreline property assistance? When is that coming through?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’ll get to that, Mr. Chairman, in the debate.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, this is a matter of such compelling concern at this moment in time in Scarborough that I’d like to know from the minister right now when is he going to provide the shoreline assistance? Am I ever glad I was here at this moment to overhear him.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, my friend knows that if any assistance is needed to protect a shoreline in Scarborough I’ll be the first in line there to try and provide that assistance.

Mr. Lewis: You know it is, and you know that Jimmy Auld is looking at it right now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’ll certainly be looking at that and I’d be happy to engage in further discussion during the debate part of the estimates about that.

Mr. Lewis: Excellent.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Members will recall that it was on August 18, 1978, when the two new ministries were established to carry out those responsibilities and functions allocated previously to the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, one being the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the other, of course, the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

This ministry was designed to bring together in one organization responsibility for policies concerning relations between the province of Ontario and other governments. There are two major aspects to these relations. First, Ontario’s relation with governments outside our provincial jurisdiction, primarily the federal and other provincial governments but also important contacts with governments beyond Canada. Second, Ontario’s relations with governments within our provincial jurisdiction, primarily municipalities but also involving other local bodies to a limited extent.

On the surface, it may seem that there is little in common between these two broad areas. It is true that there are significant differences. For example, when we talk to the federal government it is a discussion between two governments with powers and responsibilities set out in Canada’s constitution.

In contrast, relations between ourselves and municipalities involve discussions among a group of governments operating within the same jurisdiction. However, intergovernmental relations, no matter what governments are involved, does have an important common theme which forms the rationale for this ministry.

[3:15]

No government can operate effectively today without knowing and understanding one key fact: that the decisions one government makes often have an important and immediate impact on the programs and activities of other governments. This kind of chain reaction can begin anywhere in the system -- federal, provincial or municipal -- and can be expressed in many ways. For example: a budgetary decision, a newer revised grant or loan program, a change in program standards, a newer expanded activity, and so on.

But one thing is certain. Very few such decisions are self-contained in their influences. It is the knowledge and understanding of this process and the ability to evaluate and recommend policies as a result that explains why we are in business today as a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Of course, this rationale rests upon the fundamental fact that all governments -- municipal, provincial, and federal -- serve a common master. We are all representatives of the citizens, the people who pay the bills. While each level of government has its own responsibilities, we are all working towards common ends on behalf of the same people. To do this effectively and efficiently requires a co-ordinated approach carried through by sensitive people who understand the realities of jurisdictional and political concerns and needs and who have the time and the clout to carry out their responsibilities with the effect and influence that is appropriate and required.

These then were some of the essential factors which have guided us in the establishment and the subsequent structuring of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

At the outset I want to say how pleased and fortunate I am to have so many knowledgeable and dedicated people as colleagues in this ministry.

Mr. Swart: Not many of your colleagues around you now.

Mr. Foulds: What are you doing all by yourself?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are all supporting us; they are all supporting us.

In particular, I would mention my parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) --

Mr. Foulds: Where is he?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Don’t worry, he will be here.

Mr. Foulds: Why isn’t he here now?

Hon. Mr. Wells: He will be here.

Mr. Nixon: He is making out his expense account.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we don’t give him any expenses -- and my deputy minister, Don Stevenson.

Mr. Nixon: He is here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Durham West will be devoting particular time and attention to municipal-provincial issues. His background as mayor of Pickering and as parliamentary assistant to the former Treasurer is already proving to be a valuable asset to this ministry.

Don Stevenson, as many people are aware, is well known inside and beyond the Ontario public service.

Mr. Foulds: Two Tories in the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He has had broad experience as a senior adviser to the government on all aspects of intergovernmental affairs, most recently as chairman of the provincial-municipal grants reform committee.

Mr. Foulds: Can we move no confidence now, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It should also be noted that Don Stevenson has two roles in the public service. In addition to being deputy minister of this ministry, he is also coordinator of French language services for the entire government. This year he is also president of the prestigious Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

I would like to speak briefly about that component of the ministry which has the vital responsibility related to our dealings and relationships with the municipalities of Ontario. The local government division is virtually the same as the division that had the same name in Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. As before, the executive director of that division is Eric Fleming.

Within that division, there are six branches: local government organization branch, headed by Ron Farrow; municipal budgets and accounts, headed by Alec Trafford; municipal administration, headed by Ted Gomme; the provincial-municipal affairs secretariat, headed by Dick Illingworth; the subsidies branch, headed by Mark Trewin; and our field services branch, which oversees 10 regional offices and which is directed by Fred Hamblin.

Broadly speaking this division has a dual role: to advise the government on policies affecting local government, particularly municipalities, and also to assist local government in carrying out their responsibilities and their functions. If members have had a chance to look over the bill which creates the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, they will see on the

schedule appended to that bill that the new ministry has responsibility for 55 pieces of legislation, the vast majority of them in the municipal area.

More specifically, the local government division has the following within its activities: policy advice on local government structure, functions and responsibilities; assistance to municipalities on administrative and financial management; liaison with municipalities and municipal organizations on a broad range of provincial policies and programs of interest to local government; policy advice on transfer payments to municipalities, including unconditional grants, transitional and special grants and payments in lieu of taxes as well as the management of several transfer payments and loan programs.

I would like to elaborate on the last point. In our early discussion with the Treasurer and his officials, it was recognized that the municipal financial base and the system of intergovernmental transfers are important components of the fiscal and budgetary structure of this province. However, while recognizing that the ultimate responsibility for provincial financial policy rests with the Treasurer, it is also clear that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs can, and should, perform an active planning and advocate role on behalf of the municipalities of this province.

Having regard to all these factors, the decision has been made that the municipal finance branch and the intergovernmental finance and grants policy branch will remain as part of the fiscal policy division in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. On the other hand, the prime point of contact with municipalities on the implementation of policy, including finance is the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is why all unconditional grants to municipalities are in the estimates of this ministry.

I am optimistic that these arrangements relating to municipal financial matters will prove effective to all concerned. Because of the crucial nature of this area, however, we will be monitoring these arrangements very carefully, prepared to advocate refinements or alterations as may be advisable.

It is clear that the scope of the local government division is immense, carrying with it a mandate of the highest order of importance.

Throughout this early period in the life of the new ministry, we have been trying to convey our serious intention to create a new tone and stance with regard to our relationships with the municipalities of this province. In a word, we started on day one with the very clear understanding that we would be a very open, responsive and constructive operation, working in a meaningful partnership with local government.

On several occasions when I have had the opportunity, I have characterized this approach by saying that our three key words are the three “c”s -- co-operation, consultation and co-ordination. Of course there is a fourth consensus, which is always worth striving for.

This kind of partnership is essential at this point in time if we are to serve the people in an effective and efficient way. A spirit of co-operation is the order of the day because anything less, I submit, would be irresponsible not to say fruitless, as we faced the issues, large and small, that concern all of us jointly.

At this point, it is not my intention to go into a detailed recitation of all the issues which presently occupy the time and efforts of the local government division. There are however, one or two broad matters on which I would like to comment.

The first has to do with the concept of regional government. By and large, regional government has worked very well in this province.

Mr. Bradley: Where?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Bradley: Yes, one place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was implemented where it was needed and with each passing year, there has been evidence of its increasing effectiveness. There is no doubt that the remainder of the 1970s and on into --

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t needed in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. Bradley: Nor in Niagara.

Hon. Mr. Well: -- the 1980s are going to be years that will require some adjustments and refinements in many aspects of local government, both operationally and structurally. However, as I mentioned a few weeks ago, we are now beyond the time when massive restructuring of municipalities is required. The provincial government has gone as far as it intends to go with regional government.

Mr. Bradley: Darcy’s gone.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What we have serves us well, and will doubtless serve us better in the future. But I want to make it clear that we do not intend to legislate any additional regional governments or large-scale restructured municipalities.

Mr. Bradley: Good news.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Nor do we intend to embark upon any further major studies of restructuring or any further review commissions. We have had the benefit of several studies and commission reports lately, along with the local responses to them. And, of course, as the members know, still to come is the final report of the Waterloo Region Review Commission, being headed up by Bill Palmer.

Mr. Bradley: I’m glad we have a flexible minister now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We want to take the time to digest all of these studies that we have; so we will not be embarking, as I said, on any further projects of this kind of magnitude. That is not to say we will turn a blind eye to changes which may be needed in local governments. We can’t do that. But I have already told the municipal people that it would be advisable for them to have their own ongoing studies and evaluation of their operations and that the onus is largely upon them to come forward with their ideas for improvements. Certainly any such ideas which may require provincial action will be given the fullest consideration.

I believe we sometimes waste a lot of time studying, restudying and restudying again some of these things, only to find ourselves back at the starting line, where the local people and their elected representatives have most of the answers as to what is actually appropriate, feasible and achievable in their own jurisdiction. I think if we recognize some of these basic facts of life, and if we place the onus clearly upon local governments to come forward with their ideas for improvements, we all would be able to proceed on a proper course in half the time, at half the cost and with half the upset.

I mentioned earlier that the next few years are likely to be years of consolidation, improving the decision-making abilities of municipalities in terms of competing priorities in each municipality. As we grapple with the problem of a different economic climate, we will be working with municipalities to find ways of coping with the constraints with which we are all faced.

We will look at improvements that can be made to the administrative structure of municipalities; these could range from a revision of the Municipal Act to measures that might improve the management training opportunities available to municipal employees.

Another broad issue relating to local government which I would like to mention arises out of the major problems which continue to exist with regard to the definition of boundaries around many of our villages, towns and cities.

Unfortunately, as many members know from personal experience, the trend of bitter and expensive annexation battles continues today outside the regions, and there is evidence that it is an accelerating trend. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to achieve solutions to boundary problems. Quite clearly, though, it is an area that I think members will agree has to be remedied soon.

Our neighbours to the south turned a blind eye to some of these problems, with the result that many American cities have been salvaged by the metropolitan explosion. It is to be hoped that we never find ourselves in the same situation as some of our American neighbours. But the potential there, if we don’t demonstrate the capacity to come to grips with the problems we do face.

Years ago, some of our bigger cities -- Toronto included -- faced these problems, and we solved them. Today, some of our urban centres are also beginning to feel the pinch. Sarnia, Brantford, Barrie, Kingston and other cities are in much the same position as Toronto was in 1950, although on a smaller scale and with a slower rate of growth.

How do we meet the problems of these kinds of centres -- those municipalities which had pinned their hopes for boundary realignment on either the Ontario Municipal Board or county restructuring, or both?

The problems, we all know, have not gone away. We have shopping malls on the fringes and, in some cases, downtown decay. We have industrial development stalled for lack of servicing. We have intermunicipal agreements that encourage random growth. We have growth areas that can’t grow and that are indeed being bled off by indiscriminate growth. We have so-called rural areas that compete vigorously and successfully for industrial, commercial and residential development because they are not in the political-economic setting which assures the sharing of assessment.

In many instances where such circumstances arise, bitter disputes often result, with urban and rural municipalities pitted one against the other. I submit that it is neither a healthy nor a fruitful situation.

[3:30]

A few weeks ago, I put the question to delegates attending the conference of the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario: In a boundary dispute, which is the best procedure -- to have elected people fight it out even if it means a long and bitter stalemate, or to have knowledgeable and sensible impartial people make the final decision when the elected people have reached an impasse?

I asked the delegates at that conference to consider the ramifications of their views on the following questions related to a local disagreement over an amalgamation or annexation proposal:

First, should the dispute be settled by elected people or by people appointed by elected people for their impartiality?

Second, if elected people at the local level cannot come to agreement, should the boundary or annexation dispute be settled by elected people at the provincial level, which could mean the cabinet or it could mean the Legislature?

Third, is the Ontario Municipal Board a viable institution to settle such a dispute impartially, or would we be better off with a whole new body to consider and decide upon boundary and annexation disputes?

Fourth, could a special panel within the Ontario Municipal Board framework be created to decide on these disputes exclusively, with simplified and speeded-up procedures compared to the present practices?

I’m very hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that farsighted and effective answers can be found to these and other questions in the near future. I must say I don’t have all the answers at this point in time. I’ve invited the local government people, the municipalities, to comment upon these questions and I hope perhaps in this debate that members of this House will comment on these questions that I have raised and others concerning amalgamation and annexation problems, and that out of it perhaps will come a course of action that we can institute to help solve this very vexing problem that we all face at the present time.

With this broad overview of the local government division and a few of the major areas of current interest I’d now like to turn to the other component of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

First, very briefly, is the administrative aspect. Because the ministry is relatively small there is no need for a large core of central services. In order to make the most effective use of resources we will share most administrative services with the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. By this I mean services such as personnel and office services, for example.

However, there will be a small program-support unit providing those services essential to a ministry. This group, under the direction of Sam Clasky, will cover policy liaison with cabinet and cabinet committees, research and analysis of common concerns to the entire ministry, liaison with Treasury, particularly on federal-provincial and provincial-municipal financial matters -- where as I mentioned before Treasury will, of course, continue to play the key role -- and estimates preparation and expenditure monitoring.

The ministry also has a legal services branch consisting of those in the former TEIGA legal services unit who concentrated on local government and municipal law.

Mr. Nixon: Did he say “teagle legal”?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I said TEIGA legal services: Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs legal services unit.

Mr. Bradley: Sounds like a Hawaiian bar.

Mr. Nixon: Sounds like a new drink they have invented.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those in it concentrated on local government and municipal law. The director of that branch is Ian Reid.

Finally, that leads me to the intergovernmental affairs division. In number it is small, but in importance and effectiveness it is very much in the forefront of our mandate and our activities.

Broadly stated, the purpose of this division is to advise the government on all aspects of federal-provincial, interprovincial, and external relations including: advice on constitutional issues and proposals; the impact of federal program proposals upon the activities of the Ontario government and local governments; the effects upon Ontario of initiatives and proposals of other provincial governments; and contacts with governments outside Canada.

The executive director of this division is Ed Greathed, and the two directors are Gary Posen, of the federal provincial and interprovincial affairs secretariat; and Michele Fordyce, external activities secretariat.

The intergovernmental affairs division has a secretariat flavour to its activities. While it serves the ministry in a day-to-day way, it also has ongoing relationships with the Premier’s office and with other ministries in their dealings with other governments, mainly federal and provincial. For example, let me tell the honourable members that in preparation for last week’s constitutional conference in Ottawa, the staff of the division worked in close collaboration not only with me, but also the Premier’s office and the Ministry of the Attorney General as well, co-ordinating the government’s efforts as a whole.

Likewise, we will be working with the Premier and the Treasurer in preparation for the first ministers’ conference on the economy at the end of November.

The intergovernmental affairs division brings a broad perspective to bear on its support role. In its dealings with other Ontario ministries, this perspective comes as a result of its knowledge of over a decade of patterns and trends in federalism; its direct experience at first ministers’ conferences, provincial Premiers’ gatherings, interprovincial ministerial conferences and other meetings in virtually every area of government; its regularly gathered intelligence from many sources of federal, provincial, interprovincial and international matters of concern to Ontario; and its review of intergovernmental agreement.

Out of all this, we are expected to keep the government well informed of and to coordinate the whole range of issues under intergovernmental discussion at any one time.

Much of the day-to-day intergovernmental activity is of course carried on by individual ministers, but the officials of this ministry are there to advise and assist where necessary.

Because we are now into a period in Canada when there is going to be a renewed effort to accomplish constitutional change and because the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs is going to play a very large

part in this effort, I would like to provide members with a general overview as to where we now stand with regard to the constitutional talks and where we are going from here.

Ontario’s participation in last week’s conference of first ministers on the constitution had one simple objective: to propose a reasonable plan of constitutional change with the goal of strengthening our confederation. This has been an unswerving commitment of this province throughout the years of constitutional discussions. In the last decade alone, starting with its sponsorship of the Confederation of Tomorrow conference in 1967 and with Destiny Canada in 1977, Ontario’s efforts have been to understand and reconcile through imaginative and workable means the tensions among governments, regions and people of Canada.

After a seven-year absence of federal-provincial constitutional discussions -- the last was in Victoria in 1971 -- we all went to Ottawa last week fully prepared to do what we could to help restore national stability and trust in our country. In his opening remarks to the conference, the Premier struck a double theme: first, specific modifications to our constitution are required; second, a carefully arranged process for achieving them is critical for a successful outcome.

Throughout the conference, Ontario, true to its tradition, I believe, urged sound but moderate changes and undertook to bridge conflicting interests. Ontario’s presentation affirmed its strong commitment to Canadian unity and recognized the objectives essential to other parts of our country. This concern for others and not just ourselves, coupled with suggestions for further intergovernmental discussions, at which time with goodwill all governments could forge a new confederation, I think made the Ontario presentation a focus of reconciliation.

Ontario’s specific proposals for constitutional change were not presented as hard and fast ultimatums but rather as carefully weighed and considered preferences. We applied to them the same test as to their suitability which we recommend to all governments. These were, would they strengthen and improve the cohesion of Canada? Do they have the support of Canadians wherever they might live? Would they work?

Over the last decade of proposing and considering constitutional reforms, we have come closer to understanding what would be required for any successful resolution of the differences of this country. I think it boils down generally to the need for a fair deal among governments to which each can assent, not because everything appeals or all claims are met, but because the overall package is acceptable. It requires, more specifically, concerted efforts in four areas of recurring concern during this period of constitutional discussion. These are:

1. To reduce the frustrations caused by unequal economic opportunity across Canada. Disparities arise because some regions are rich in natural resources while others have the stimulus of favourable national policy. Some, however, have neither; therefore, one objective of constitutional change should be to ensure better sharing of economic advantage in all parts of Canada.

2. To ensure the development of the French-Canadian language and culture, predominantly but not solely centred in Quebec.

3. To respect the claims of our native people concerning their rights and of our multicultural heritage when formulating reforms.

4. To devise means of reconciling differences between governments to lessen insensitivities and conflicts among their individual actions.

With these general objectives in mind, Ontario puts forward the following proposals as a realistic and effective set of constitutional changes:

1. Selective but significant adjustment to the distribution of powers to strengthen provincial responsibilities for economic and fiscal matters of national impact;

2. New practices for intergovernmental consultation and reconciliation of differences to reduce the number of unilateral and insensitive actions by one government without sufficient regard for the effect on the other; --

Mr. Nixon: Have you any government in mind there?

Hon. Mr. Wells: In some cases provincial governments and in some cases the federal government; I think we have all been to blame in that regard from time to time.

3. A process by which the provinces meaningfully contribute to the appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.

4. The assurance that individuals, goods, capital and services can freely move across the country;

5. An expression of individual human rights as identified in the 1971 Canadian constitutional charter that was drawn up in Victoria;

6. The rights of parents of official language minorities to have their children educated in the minority language where numbers are significant;

7. An amending formula involving a significant majority of legislative bodies across Canada;

8. The Queen’s constitutional power and authority should remain exactly as they are. We believe the crown provides stability and continuity in our country and we wish to leave that majestic and honoured relationship as it is.

Mr. Nixon: We certainly want that one.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We hope you do. In addition, we put forward specific ideas for reducing the duplication and overlapping of government services. Each of these proposals was discussed at the conference. However, in the interests of time today, I am not going to go into detail. If members would care to raise any of them for discussion, I would be happy to provide any commentary or discuss them during consideration of these estimates.

We recognize that our proposals are only as effective as the process to mould them into an intergovernmental consensus and ultimate constitutional change. With that in mind, Ontario proposed a procedure for intergovernmental negotiation intended to produce agreement within a reasonable time frame by focusing on a limited range of issues. This will depend heavily on a commitment to serious, open and prolonged negotiations by officials and ministers in all governments.

Our first point was to recognize that some issues more than others had the makings of a broad consensus. We believe governments should work on these matters first. A little success does wonders for the credibility of the whole success. Our idea was that first ministers should shortlist those items for priority attention, reserving the other issues for a second round of discussion.

Next we proposed that a joint committee on constitutional change composed of the appointees of 11 governments should be established to reduce the various positions on each issue to a single recommendation or, failing that, limited alternatives. These would be presented to the first ministers again within six months. Then, once these differences had been reconciled by the first ministers and a package of proposals for change agreed to, each government would submit the proposals in appropriate constitutional language to its respective legislatures for public approval.

[3:45]

Once approved, the formal steps for changing the British North America Act could then proceed. I think members will realize that this procedure, which was in the Premier’s opening statement to the conference, resembles very closely the followup procedures which were ultimately adopted by the first ministers at the conference. The first ministers agreed that constitutional change was an urgent national priority and that all governments would have to devote the necessary time and effort to this task over the coming weeks and months.

Moreover, they recognized that unless there was a willingness among them all to reach a consensus and to be flexible in their positions, there would be little likelihood of success. The clear process for followup which the first ministers adopted at the conclusion of the Ottawa conference includes the following steps:

First, the Prime Minister and Premiers decided that they would meet again on February 5 and 6, 1979, thus making it clear that the task of constitutional reform remains urgent and will continue; second, they established a special committee of federal and provincial ministers consisting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, Attorneys General and ministers responsible for the constitution, to review particular items discussed at the conference and to prepare specific proposals or alternatives for consideration by first ministers in February; third, and while it was not included in the conference communique they did in effect establish a short list of priority items during their discussion which will become the agenda for the committee of ministers which will begin meeting soon.

It is my expectation that this agenda will closely resemble the following list of items. The first is the distribution of powers within which there are seven items on the short list -- restrictions on the spending power of Parliament; obligations on Parliament regarding equalization and regional development; provisions for provincial indirect taxes; limits: on the federal declaratory power; clarification of provincial responsibilities with regard to natural resources, offshore resources, fisheries and interprovincial and international trade; shared responsibility for the field of communications, and unification of family law under provincial jurisdiction.

These seven items are those proposed by Prime Minister Trudeau for detailed discussion on the second day of the conference and they were welcomed by virtually all first ministers as a significant step forward by the federal government.

The sixth item that will be considered is amending and patriation. The ministers will be considering an amending formula for the constitution and they will be discussing how patriation could be achieved quickly and effectively. This last subject resulted in a great deal of discussion at the conference, with strongly opposing views being expressed by the federal government on the one hand and the government of Quebec on the other.

Mr. Nixon: Where do we fit in on that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, I’ll tell the member. In spite of Quebec’s position that patriation should only be considered at the end of the complete constitutional review process, I think it is something that the committee of ministers will have to explore in detail over the next three months. Certainly, the federal government’s position was just the opposite, that patriation was a very important thing to be considered right up there in the front on any list of constitutional considerations.

The Ontario position on these matters is very clear, and it was expressed at the conference by the Premier (Mr. Davis). It is that we believe that the task of bringing our constitution home to Canada is a highly desirable, urgent national objective, and that we should proceed with that right away.

Mr. Haggerty: So you agree with Prime Minister Trudeau? Let the record stand.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We believe that a flexible amending formula must be found along the lines of the one contained in the Victoria charter of 1971.

As I said a few minutes ago, the format and substance of the followup to the Ottawa conference closely resembles the proposition which Ontario put forward at the outset. This resemblance is no coincidence but a reflection of this province’s careful, realistic approach to constitutional change. We were very much aware of the views of other governments. We carefully assessed what would be desirable and what in practice would work. We made every effort at the conference to bring differing views together and keep the conference on course.

In this way I think that Ontario, and the Premier particularly, contributed significantly to the conference’s achievements. Moreover, the fact of this achievement should be emphasized. I think I would like to underline that. The conference was a success. It reopened the process of constitutional review through direct discussions between the federal and provincial governments for the first time in seven years. It clearly established a renewed constitution as a national priority. It agreed upon a mechanism, timetable and agenda for follow up.

Most definitely, in my view, the Ottawa conference set into motion a chain of events which should bring us closer to achieving our objectives. To avoid any significant time lapse, I would like to tell the honourable members that the first meeting of the special committee of ministers has already been scheduled for November 23, 24 and 25. Arrangements have been made by the Canadian intergovernmental conference secretariat to hold the meetings at the well-known Cantrakon conference centre, which is located in the picturesque Gatineau Hills north of Hull.

Mr. Nixon: Our own local one will be ready for that date.

Mr. Foulds: They picked a good place.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thought the members would be interested in that piece of information. That comes very highly recommended to us by the federal people in Ottawa.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) going to be there?

Mr. Swart: Their use pays for 90 per cent of it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Subsequent followup meetings of the committee will be held, we expect, in December and January; all in preparation for the next conference of first ministers in early February.

The means for achieving progress towards a new constitution are thus now firmly in place. I do not underestimate the difficulties that we shall have, but I am confident that we are closer to a consensus than many might be willing to concede.

With that report on the structure and the role of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs and this brief outline of some of our present activities, let me conclude by saying that I look forward to discussing all of these and other matters with the members of this House during the consideration of these budget estimates.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I’d like to clarify one particular thing. With your indulgence, I’d like to indicate that I’m going to be giving about half the statement now, and my colleague, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), who is the critic for the part of Intergovernmental Affairs which deals with provincial-federal relations, will be giving a statement later on in the day with respect to that particular responsibility. I hope that with the indulgence of the chair we will be able to make these two statements separately. I would hope that the minister would not have any opposition to that particular approach.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would think after your statement we would revert to the third party and then back to your second matter.

Mr. Epp: Yes, that would be fine.

Mr. Swath: Can I get a clarification on this? Is it my understanding that we should have two lead-in statements or that we will be reverting to a vote? If there are two lead-in statements for any caucus in this House I suppose there will be two lead-in statements for all caucuses.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The rules adopted by the House indicate only one lead-in speaker, but with the unanimous consent of those present we could split the speech between two members, if the members present so desire, because of the nature of this ministry. Other than that, I would have to take one initial statement and then on the first vote we can take the second statement, as we did with another ministry last week.

Mr. Epp: It’s perfectly fine with us if Mr. Roy has an opportunity to speak later on the first item. If you want to regard that as the second part of the lead-in statement, we’d appreciate that, Thank you very much.

The statement the minister has made -- brief statement that it is, about 39 pages or so -- indicates clearly the organization of the new ministry. We agree with a large part of this, and we feel the ministry should have been broken off from the Treasury and Economics part of it. We’ll obviously have an opportunity to speak more thoroughly on that when the bill, to which my colleague the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) alluded earlier, comes before the House next week or whenever.

In the days when the Roman Empire was expanding, a general who annexed a province laid down a basic statute establishing a system of taxation. The Romans considered this just payment for the questionable benefit of Roman rule. It is considered that the system worked extremely well -- for the Romans anyway, who were not noted for generosity and who never gave anything back without severe conditions. It worked even better for the provincial governors who made sure by over-assessments that more than enough money was collected -- enough to fill their own pockets and those of their staffs.

When a community was in need of money, as it often was, Roman financiers helped out by lending it money at fantastically high interest rates. I’m not suggesting for a moment that anyone in the government is pocketing any money, but the government is, through various means, taxing the people of this province and then generously giving the money back to municipalities, school boards, libraries, museums on a conditional basis. The people have to pay unconditionally and then receive grants back conditionally.

Let’s look at some of these grants. The resource equalization grant provides assistance to those municipalities with below average local resource bases, which then enables the government to improve services without undue reliance on the property tax. I support the principle of resource equalization grants, which tends to equalize municipalities from the standpoint of offering and affording needed services. The principle of equity has widespread support, as it should have; that is, the have areas helping the have-not areas to extend equity.

The degree of equalization depends on the factors used to determine the amount of the grant. This, I submit, is at the heart of the unequal treatment suffered by such municipalities as Sarnia, Windsor, St. Catharines, Burlington, and yes Kitchener. Windsor feels it is being short-changed to the extent of about $13 million; Sarnia, over $1 million; and others to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As the minister responsible for dealing directly with municipalities, I would hope you would seriously try to amend this inequity. I’m wondering to what extent you are prepared to see Windsor, Sarnia, Burlington, St. Catharines, Kitchener and other municipalities benefit equally from the resource equalization grant.

With respect to the Edmonton commitment, in 1973 the then Hon. John White went to Edmonton and while there he committed the provincial government to transfer to local government funds which would be equal to the growth rate of provincial budgetary revenues. The municipalities were elated. They felt that for the first time the province had given them some degree of security; a guarantee, if you will, of financial support, on the basis of which they could plan their budget and the progress of their municipalities.

[4:00]

The euphoria was short-lived. Within a year or so the then Treasurer indicated that what municipalities believed to be a minimum amount was, in fact, a maximum. An agreement which initially had been developed through consultation with the MLC and other municipal bodies was all of a sudden changed unilaterally. On September 16, 1977, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), again unilaterally, without discussion, informed the Ontario municipalities -- all 835 of them -- that the Edmonton commitment was again going to be changed.

This time such items as the teachers’ superannuation fund, payments in lieu, farm tax rebates, home renewal payments, regional priorities, would be part of calculating the transfer of these funds.

Since at least two important changes have been made since the Edmonton commitment was arrived at in 1973, do you anticipate making any other changes in the future to that particular commitment? Secondly, are you prepared to legislate the amount of grants you are committed to make to municipalities rather than leave it to the whim of the Treasurer or to order in council?

As you are aware, the government has promised further deconditionalization of grants. In 1969-70, 88 per cent of total financial assistance was in the form of conditional grants. In 1977-78, 79 per cent of financial assistance was conditional, a decrease of nine per cent in conditional funding over eight years. For 1978-79, only 11.6 per cent of the total transfers to municipalities are in the form of unconditional grants.

The fact that unconditional funding seems to be declining could be seen as an indication that the province wants to determine the priorities for municipalities rather than leaving it to the municipalities themselves. In other words, municipalities have not yet reached the stage where they can make decisions with any degree of flexibility.

Mr. Minister, I am aware that significant grant reform was proposed earlier this year by a committee headed by Deputy Minister Don Stevenson. Some important changes were recommended and your ministry has received responses to these proposals. I’m wondering whether you could indicate to this House the reaction you received to the paper that Mr. Stevenson and his committee put out -- reaction from organizations such as the libraries, the museums, the senior citizens’ centres, areas that receive conditional grants? Further, when do you anticipate introducing legislation or a white paper on this important subject?

I believe no statement regarding intergovernmental affairs would be complete without comment on the state of local government in Ontario and the direction in which it appears to be headed. Some major changes have occurred in the structure of municipalities within the last 10 years, changes which have not been equalled since the Baldwin Act of the late 1840s. Some of these were necessary and desirable; others have met with a great deal of opposition.

Regional government, as it was formulated and applied to Toronto in 1953, was good in principle and has functioned relatively well. Amendments to the earlier version have been recommended and implemented, such as reducing the number of municipalities from 13 to six. Elsewhere in the province where regional government has been imposed, it has been viewed with scepticism at best and often with outright consternation and opposition.

The provincial government has commissioned several studies of regions, as the minister indicated earlier today, such as Metro, Niagara, Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton, and more recently the region of Waterloo.

With the exception of the last study, which has not been completed, a few million dollars has been expended on these studies but only minor amendments have been introduced and implemented in this House. One was the establishment of the municipality of Hazel-dean-March. The other was the important amendment to the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act which gave St. Catharines one extra representative on the regional council, for which I suppose the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) should take a great deal of credit because he was the first one to champion that particular cause.

These two amendments and the four or five studies that have taken place are hardly an enviable record. Our party would like to know exactly how much money the provincial government has spent on these regional reviews and, secondly, when we can expect some major amending legislation to be introduced, which has been recommended by the various studies.

I believe, however, that the present government has learned important lessons regarding the formation of new governments when I read the minister’s speech to the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario last month and his remarks earlier today. For instance, he indicates that he doesn’t want to go ahead with more regional studies and with more regional restructuring. I notice that on both of these occasions he said: “What we have serves us well and will doubtless serve us better in the future. However, I want to tell you today that we do not intend to legislate any additional regional governments or large-scale restructured municipalities.”

I wonder how this particular statement, which he has made on a few occasions, relates to the studies that have been done in Northumberland for instance, and the fairly lengthy studies that have occurred in the Georgian Bay archipelago.

I wonder whether the particular policy that he has enunciated here now means that what has happened in Northumberland is dead for the next five or 10 years or whatever; or, since a fairly thorough study was done in that part of the province and a fairly thorough study has been done in the Georgian Bay area-both with considerable opposition, I dare say -- I wonder whether he still plans to bring some kind of amending legislation restructuring these areas to the House.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister to give us some indication, later in his remarks, as to how he stands with respect to the questions I have posed.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before calling the next speaker, I would reply further to the request of the member for Waterloo North concerning his colleague from Ottawa East.

I would make the suggestion that we will be dealing with vote 1101B, item 1, which is the main office. We can conclude that and then, when we get to vote 1102, which is intergovernmental affairs, the member for Ottawa East will have time to lead off that discussion and discuss everything he wants on that.

This suggestion is made in the light of the ruling that the chairman of the committee of the whole House made at the beginning of this debate, that basically only one critic could speak at length and in far-ranging terms on vote 1101, item 1. Intergovernmental affairs really doesn’t come under this vote, but it would be acceptable when we get to the next vote; the member for Ottawa East can lead off and make his general statement at that time.

Mr. Epp: I would hope that we would be able to get to that later on this evening, Mr. Chairman, and that would be perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to do in speaking on these first estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and before it is officially divided, is to express pleasure that there has been a division of responsibilities in the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, and to express pleasure at the appointment that was made as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I think it is obvious that the government wanted to change the whole image of TEIGA. They wanted to soften its image; they wanted to have more co-operative stance and, I hope, to give more emphasis to municipal affairs in this Legislature by having a minister whose prime responsibility is in that field.

I have to say that I have some concern about the municipal finance branch and the intergovernmental municipal finance and grants sections being left under the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. There may be some problem there when the Treasurer has no direct responsibility to the municipalities in any effort they make at persuading him to provide the necessary financial assistance, to give the necessary recognition to municipal government in the financial field. It will obviously, therefore, be up to this minister to ensure that the municipalities get their rightful share of taxes which are collected by the provincial government.

I would also like to say that it would be my hope -- and we will go into this, of course, more fully when the IGA bill is before us -- MIGA I guess it should be known as, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: IGA.

Mr. Swart: IGA? Okay, you are willing to put it at the level of a grocery store.

Hon. Mr. Wells: MIA.

Mr. Bradley: Missing in action.

Mr. Swart: Whatever the name of the ministry is, I would hope that some consideration will be given by the government and by the minister to perhaps including some other municipal functions within his ministry.

I think particularly of planning, which is so closely associated with local government that I have some real doubts that it should be under any other ministry; and perhaps I dare say too that, with the present Minister of Housing, I would prefer to see that function under some other ministry and would hope some consideration might be given to consolidating some of the responsibility for municipal services under this ministry.

I want also to commend the minister for generally giving a thoughtful speech on his introductory remarks to these estimates. His approach to the whole question of annexations I think shows an open mind, and I am the first one to say there is no easy answer to these problems of annexation. The alternatives he puts forward, on which the decision is to be made, I think are ones that have been carefully thought out and I commend him for that.

I also commend largely the comments which he made relative to constitutional reform. The proposals which this government has put forward for procedures, and most of the objectives are ones with which we can find very little fault. Of course, largely all that has been done so far -- and I am sure the minister would agree -- is to endeavour to draft a new agenda. I am not suggesting that this isn’t an important part but the tough bargaining, tough negotiations are still yet to come.

I would like to make two suggestions to the minister in this regard, and hope that he will accept them in the spirit in which they are put forward. One is that I would think as observers at the next one there would be some merit in taking with you, if it is not intended or even if you do intend to do so, at least one municipal representative from this province to sit in at least as an observer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could I just inform my friend that the chairman of the Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee, Mr. Ed Mitchelson, was a member of the Ontario delegation at the recent conference. I’m sorry, I guess that wasn’t widely disseminated, but Mr. Mitchelson was there and sat in for most of the sessions in the conference hall and in a lot of our briefing sessions.

Mr. Nixon: In Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In Ottawa, the meetings there last week.

Mr. Nixon: Why didn’t you take some of the people from the Legislature?

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) was there for a while.

Mr. Nixon: He had to crash the party. It isn’t the department of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Swart: If the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk would desist for a moment, I was just going to suggest that there would be merit also in taking at least one representative from each of the opposition parties. Although the minister probably would never admit this, the constitutional debates and reforms are going to take a long period of time. It just might be that there would be some other government sitting here. It’s wise to have the benefit of all parties sitting in on the discussion.

Mr. Nixon: Imagine that. Your hair is going to turn grey.

Mr. Swart: I would put that proposal forward for the minister’s consideration.

I’d like to spend most of my time speaking about some things that the minister did not cover. He did mention regional government very briefly. I’m always a bit intrigued, whether it’s this minister or his predecessor, that they take great pains to say there are going to be no more regional governments and also take great pains to say that the ones we have are working very well.

Mr. Nixon: They are so good.

Mr. Bradley: That’s a contradiction in itself.

Mr. Swart: I think those who live within the regional government know there’s some contradiction in those statements.

Mr. Nixon: It will take 50 years of regional governments to recover their losses.

Mr. Swart: Any polls taken would show, except for that outside of Metro Toronto where there is one continuous urban area, in all other areas there is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with regional government. I suggest that’s the real reason they’re not proceeding to regionalize other areas in much the same situation as some of the 12 which have already been formed as regional municipalities.

I was disappointed that the minister made no mention of the financing of local governments and no mention of property tax reform.

Mr. Nixon: We have the Edmonton commitment.

Mr. Swart: I assume those responsibilities will come under his ministry, but even if they do not there’s no question that he will be the front man on these issues and he will be the one who will be making recommendations for any changes, or for that matter perhaps keeping the status quo. I want to say to him -- and I’m sure he must be aware of this -- that the whole subject of funding of local governments, the whole tax problem, is in a very large degree of chaos at the present time.

During the last three or four years there has been a direct about-face from the stated policy of the government that it was going to de-emphasize the property tax and was going to give some continuity in the whole issue of transfer payments to the municipalities.

I’m sure the minister is aware that in the last three years at least the transfer payments that have been made from the government to local government have not kept up with the increase in taxes. In other words, more and more of the expenditures of local government, all levels of local government, have had to be collected from the property taxpayers.

The actual transfers for 1976 increased by something like 7.7 per cent. In 1977, it was 7.2 per cent and in 1978 it was 5.3 per cent. By the figures that were produced by TEIGA in the last three years, the mill rates have increased by something like 43.5 per cent over those three years. That has been due to the fact the government has not been transferring at the rate of increase of expenditures. It’s fair to say that municipalities have cut down very substantially on their expenditures; but even then the level of provincial transfers has not been kept up.

The member for Waterloo North mentioned the Edmonton commitment. It was, I think, a reasonably sound proposal, but we know what has happened to it during the last three years. It wasn’t lived up to during those years. The commitment that the government would transfer to municipalities not less than the increase in provincial revenue, has not been lived up to in the last three years, and now it has been abandoned. I think the minister may want to make some statement on that before the debate is finished on these estimates.

I mentioned the increase in property taxation -- and if the minister wishes to check back on this, I can name the document; I’m sure the ministry staff would be able to provide it. I think it is important that he know where they come from. If I can find it here I will get to that in a minute.

In any event, I want to point out that the 43.5 per cent increase in property taxation during the years 1974 to 1977 does not indicate the true net property tax increase to many of the property taxpayers in this province.

May I just interject to tell the minister the figures I have used are from the publication dated September 16, 1977: Advance Notice of 1978 Provincial Transfer to Local Government Municipal Spending and Mill Rate Performance 1974 to 1977. If he looks at that document he will notice there has been a 43.5 per cent increase in the mill rates.

As I say, this does not tell the whole picture. It has in fact been higher than that. This doesn’t show there was an increase in average assessment for people improving their homes and otherwise. TEIGA made allowance for this in the 1977 budget, saying this increase amounted to 2.4 per cent. Although this doesn’t show in the mill rates, if a person has a slightly higher assessment than he had the previous year, or if there are more new houses in the municipality than old houses and therefore there is a shift to more expensive assessments, the average home owner still has to pick that up.

Although there was no increase made in that equalization this last year, it does average somewhere in the neighbourhood of one or two per cent a year.

Further, people pay more on their properties simply because there are improvements -- they have made a rec room in the basement or whatever the case may be. If we add this in we find the average increase has been in the neighbourhood of 47 or 48 per cent in the last three years. That is a substantial increase; that is much higher than the increase in the cost of living, that is much higher than the increase in average wages and salaries within this province.

It is, unfortunately, levied in a regressive manner on a regressive base. It has become increasingly regressive, because not only has there been a shift of municipal expenditures to the property tax, but there has not been anywhere near enough increase in the property tax credit to take care of that. As a result, these tax increases have fallen more heavily on t