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

June 2, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L063 - Mon 2 Jun 1980 / Lun 2 jun 1980

ORAL QUESTIONS

INFLATION INDEXING

REMARKS BY MEMBER FOR HIGH PARK-SWANSEA

THREE SCHOOLS

REMARKS BY MEMBER FOR HIGH PARK-SWANSEA

THE TIN DRUM

TIMBER LICENCES

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY LAYOFFS

CROWN COTTAGE LOT APPRAISALS

DUBREUILVILLE SHOOTING

FUND-RAISING PROMOTERS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETING

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

INTERIM ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER I I I

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: If I ask where everybody is, Mr. Speaker, would that be my first question? Are they all watching The Tin Drum? Is that where they are?

INFLATION INDEXING

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question of the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer state his government’s position with regard to the removal of the inflation indexing provision for personal income taxes -- a removal which allegedly is currently being considered by the federal government? As the Treasurer will recall, a reconsideration of this particular indexing was requested by the Premier (Mr. Davis) towards the end of 1978 and the possible removal was suggested at that time. What is the position of the government of Ontario with regard to the removal of the inflation indexing provision?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have been asked for our opinion on that since the days of Mr. Chretien as Minister of Finance. I do remember talking to him at least once, and I believe there will be a letter from me to him on that topic somewhere, because he asked me if I would confirm some oral discussions with him on it.

Of course, in Ontario, we are affected by that decision in terms of our revenue. Our provincial personal income tax is 44 per cent of the amount the federal government levies. Therefore, any change upward or downward would affect Ontario’s revenue.

At the time I last talked to Mr. Chretien, we were questioning the full indexing of the personal income tax exemptions because we were not sure the measured factors, the ones they use in the statutes, truly reflected the amount that taxation exemption should be indexed. That was the gist of our comments to Mr. Chretien then. In effect, it would probably still be our position in the sense that we would like to discuss with the federal government what is a fair level of indexing.

I would also like to say I think Ontario has been quite consistent across the years in worrying about automatic indexing of anything in the sense that we are beginning to believe inflation is becoming institutionalized in too many ways and few enough discrete decisions are left to anyone. Formulae, whether for salaries, for income tax exemptions or for payments by governments, are becoming tied to factors that may not truly represent needs of society and may not truly represent government’s ability to pay at times. We have argued that it is better to make discrete decisions than have automatic built-in indexing.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Treasurer will agree that at least the intention of the indexing provision -- although I take it he may feel that the intention is not being accomplished by the present numbers -- is to prevent inflation from artificially bumping people into higher tax brackets, in that sense does the Treasurer not feel that to remove such provision basically will provide a windfall revenue for government, including his own government?

Should it not be Ontario’s position to oppose that so that the people who are already suffering from inflation will not find themselves with an artificially increased tax bill as a consequence of government’s avidity for more and more of the taxpayers’ money?

While he is answering that, could he possibly tell us whether the Ontario government has any impact studies with regard to what the impact would be on Ontario taxpayers in various brackets if these indexing provisions were to be removed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those last studies would be easy to do because they would be simply computer printouts of available data. I suspect if I asked my staff if they have them available they wouldn’t need to do a study; they could simply give them to me. I suspect that kind of information is available.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You don’t have them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t have them in my head, let’s put it that way, even though my head is the closest thing to a computer one will ever see.

Mr. Kerrio: It is the same shape.

Mr. Breaugh: It might be the closest thing to a stone we will ever see.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is an old-fashioned computer; it is run on a mechanical clock and it has to be wound up each day.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A whole bunch of beads on a string between your ears.

Hon. F. S Miller: It was a nice happy blend between the computer and the brain.

Mr. Nixon: Garbage in, garbage out.

Mr. Makarchuk: The computer just blew a fuse.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I obviously see I shouldn’t feed you fellows lines on a Monday. I have totally lost track of the first part of the question.

Mr. S. Smith: Shouldn’t the Treasurer be against this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Shouldn’t I be against this? In a day and age when governments traditionally are spending more than they are levying, one of the impediments to balancing the budget is making discrete tax rate changes. In the days when this was provided for, I guess they followed the doctrine of Milton Friedman who said governments caused inflation; therefore, governments shouldn’t benefit from inflation.

At the same time, I suggest there is another danger. The federal government has seen its revenues in the last four or five years drop considerably below its spending rate. It has not been in a position or desiring to raise its revenues through the normal proper route of changing rates. Therefore, it has run a bigger and bigger deficit, which is simply buying more trouble in the future. I think it is not totally white or black on that issue. I sense that good economic management has been hampered to some degree by automatic indexing.

In Ontario, if we look at the increase in revenues since indexing began, we will find that the rate of revenue increase generally has been below the rate of the increased inflation rate or gross provincial product simply because we have taken what they call the elasticity out of our revenue sources by some of these factors.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: May I just ask a final supplementary from my point of view? Would the Treasurer agree that, removed of all technical terms, what he is really saying is that the governments would like to have even greater windfalls from inflation than they already have?

Rather than have the courage to come before the people with some kind of tax increase -- which I am not recommending, but if he thinks he needs the revenue -- he would rather get the revenue through the back door of removing the indexing provision, automatically forcing people artificially into higher tax brackets so that governments make more money. Is the Treasurer simply saying he would countenance the removal of this indexing provision because he does not like the notion of raising people’s taxes directly, so he raises them indirectly but the money comes out of the same pocket?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have been keenly aware of that and obviously no one on the federal scene has been. In the years when indexing took place Ontario took what action was expected of government when indexing was brought in, that is steps to control spending. That did not happen at the federal level. The members opposite can agree with me on that because it is historical. It is not a question of decision; it shows fundamentally -- and I believe this is critical -- the difference in philosophy between a Conservative and a Liberal. The Liberals have consistently believed that big deficits do not hurt.

The members opposite lecture me in this House about those big deficits but the action at the federal scene tells me Liberals do not believe that big deficits hurt. At the present time, 20 per cent of the federal spending is just for interest.

Mr. Hennessy: Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Treasurer be kind enough to explain to me the schizophrenia within the Liberal Party by which its provincial leader takes one position the day after the federal Minister of Finance has taken another position? They talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Would the Treasurer likewise explain to me how, as a Conservative, he can denounce a scheme originally proposed by his federal counterpart when Robert Stanfield was the leader of the federal Conservative party? That party talks out of both sides of its mouth as well. When can we move to a fair tax system in this country and in this province based on ability to pay?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend made me think for a moment I was going to be embarrassed into supporting him but he cut me off at the knees as he spoke. He has now got both of us mad at him. Does he feel better now?

Mr. Nixon: That is all right. They will vote for the government in spite of that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we have not deserted the principle. What we are suggesting to the members opposite is that we question whether the numbers being used serve the purpose first put forward as a principle by, I believe, Mr. Stanfield, that government should not automatically reap the harvest of inflation when it prints more money. That I agree with. The fact remains governments must be responsible and balance their budgets. That’s something we try to do and I think have bad great success with in Ontario. I think the honourable member would agree the federal government has had no success with it, regardless of whether he accepts it as a good goal.

REMARKS BY MEMBER FOR HIGH PARK-SWANSEA

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition for his second question, I note the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) has taken his seat. All members of the House will recall, as a result of an urging by the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) for the chair to review what was said earlier by the member for High Park-Swansea, I had an opportunity to review what was said. I agree with the position taken by the member for Wilson Heights that actions attributed to him were not in keeping with parliamentary tradition in this House.

On Thursday last, at 10:30 p.m., I gave the member for High Park-Swansea an opportunity to withdraw the remarks. Now the confrontation between the member for Wilson Heights and the member for High Park- Swansea is no longer in that domain. The refusal on Thursday evening of the member for High Park-Swansea to withdraw the unparliamentary remarks is now an affront to the tradition in this House and an affront to the authority of the chair which has ruled that, in fact, the remarks do constitute a breach of privilege of a member of this House.

I now give the member for High Park-Swansea an opportunity to review his position and, if he so desires, to withdraw the comment without any editorial comment. Does the honourable member have anything to say?

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, we all know what I said is true. I do not intend to withdraw the remarks. I do not intend to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member has reiterated what he said on Thursday evening. His action and the position he has taken are an affront to the orderly procedures, the standing rules and the authority of the chair whose responsibility it is to decide what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary.

In view of the action taken by the member for High Park-Swansea, I am going to refuse to see the honourable member. I am going to ask anybody who occupies this chair to refuse to see him. I am going to request that all members of all standing and select committees refuse to see the member for High Park-Swansea until he withdraws the remark.

THREE SCHOOLS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer may be aware that the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), who has been requested to find an extra $45,000 to keep the Three Schools of art in operation, said on television last night, “You can’t get blood from a stone.”

Since I presume the Treasurer is the stone in question, could he explain why it is that sum of money was not made available to the Minister of Culture and Recreation,

whereas one Maurice Carter from Hamilton has had made available to him from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism the air fares for a 12-man crew in order that they can go to the Le Mans endurance race and race in his Camaro, which apparently General Motors was unwilling to support? Why was the stone able to bleed for that terribly important and worthy cause of sending the crew over to Le Mans and not able to bleed for the Minister of Culture and Recreation for the Three Schools? Does the Minister of Culture and Recreation have absolutely no clout in cabinet?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in general I set the overall budget of the ministry with my colleagues in cabinet and then I allow the minister to interpret that budget as best he or she sees fit.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since the matter of the Three Schools seems to be related to a Canada Council decision at the federal level that the school is an educational institution and falls within the purview of the provincial government with respect to the British North America Act, can the Treasurer explain why it is the Ministry of Education has not had additional funds made available to it to deal with the cases which the Canada Council has abandoned?

Given the fact that these are important institutions which create a lot of employment, provide important educational and artistic opportunities, why has the Treasurer not made money available for that when he is apparently able to make money available to send a crew to Le Mans?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to instruct my friend in the way money is disseminated by a minister. Once in a long while the Treasurer is called in for something as important as the farm assistance program or something of that nature, but in general, once the overall allowances are made to each ministry I have very little to do with the individual allocations and I think that is the way it should be.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is not the stone?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I probably am the stone in the sense that somebody has to turn taps off in total. That is one of my jobs.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since it would appear that the Treasurer is saying the Minister of Culture and Recreation has not approached him for any additional funds, since the minister gave a very clear impression on television, when he said you cannot get blood from a stone, that he had tried everything possible to get the money, can we take it that the minister, in fact, has not approached the Treasurer, has made no effort at all to find additional funds other than from within his own budget, which undoubtedly was already accounted for?

If that is the case, can the Treasurer explain why the minister is giving the impression that he has turned every stone to try to find the blood necessary for this particular school?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If one turns enough stones, one might find some.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that there are 24 or 25 of us in cabinet. Two of us are given the job to say no. Every other minister, outside of the Premier, the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), basically has specific responsibilities almost all of which, allowing for the natural positive leanings of politicians, can cost money and therefore every minister of the crown -- ask any of my colleagues -- would say that he or she could use more money effectively, but we do believe in responsible spending and it is my job to be --

Hon. Mr. Snow: We sure could, Frank, we sure could.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend on my left -- in one sense anyway -- constantly reminds me of his needs and so do others.

REMARKS BY MEMBER FOR HIGH PARK-SWANSEA

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, are we to gather from your ruling presented to the House in association with the statement by the member for High Path-Swansea, that since you have indicated his statements were unparliamentary and therefore unacceptable in this House you are not taking the usual course of action but in fact you are indicating to the House you will not recognize his presence and that you are instructing the chairmen of committees he is not to be recognized in committee? Is that true?

Mr. Speaker: The first part of your assumption is absolutely correct. I will not recognize the member for High Path-Swansea and he will not be allowed to participate in the debates or in the question periods. I am not demanding that the chairmen of committees do that, I am requesting that they do so and I hope they will see the wisdom of such a course of action. What the member does outside the House is certainly his own business, but he does not enjoy the privileges of this House at the present time.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the House the basis of this substantial departure from our traditions, which have been well understood and really immutable for over 100 years?

Mr. Speaker: It seems on certain occasions members know full well that on occasion they can say almost whatever they want to and, by absenting themselves for a brief period of time, they are able to do that almost with impunity.

It is a departure, I agree. It is something I feel very strongly about. The member himself bas chosen to disregard the rules of the House and the decision I took last Thursday night with regard to the responsibilities of the chair in the matter of unparliamentary language. It seemed that something unusual had to be done and I am trying this. Members of the House can challenge me if they wish, but I have made my ruling and it stands.

Mr. Nixon: Will you permit a further interjection on the point of order? May I bring to your attention, sir, that I don’t believe there has been an occasion where you have dismissed a member from the service of the House for any period of time when eventually that member has not withdrawn the words that were offending?

I, too, have shared the Speaker’s concern about such a procedure whereby unparliamentary statements might be made and then after a brief withdrawal the member resumes his or her place without withdrawing the remarks. But in my experience we have always had a withdrawal of the remarks and we have not accepted, as a House, that being sent out of the House, however briefly, more or less paid the price for uttering the unparliamentary remarks.

I personally must say, with great respect, that I am not impressed with the alternative you have brought forward and I would ask for your further consideration.

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I also speak to this point, particularly with respect to the contents of standing order 20? It would seem, Mr. Speaker, with greatest respect, that the alternative which is open to you is only to name a member and to see to the expulsion of that member after naming him. What we have seen this afternoon is indeed a challenge to you by the comments which, one could say, were flaunted by the member for High Park-Swansea in his refusal to accommodate your offer.

I think, sir, you have gone far further along this path than anyone could reasonably have asked you to do. Suggesting that the member is able to keep his place and yet not be recognized by you or by the particular chairman of committees to which that member may attend is not the purpose of rule 20. If I may say so, I believe you have been lenient and your position has been made somewhat more awkward by having this additional challenge thrown to you today by the member for High Park-Swansea.

As a member of this House, I believe a review by all members of standing order 20 would be useful in that the challenge which has been placed to the chair has put you in a very difficult and unfair position. I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Cassidy), and indeed the other House leaders and leaders of parties here, have an obligation to see you through this particular circumstance. I would call upon them in your presence, sir, to ensure that the rule, as it is set out here, is clearly and carefully enforced in the interest of all of us as members of this House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I think you have handled the situation with admirable dexterity, reaching into British precedent for the ruling you have given us today.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a very disturbing matter. Certainly the comments that have been made in this House and the motives imputed and attributed to members of this party by another member of the House were remarks which could not be tolerated.

I think you were absolutely and perfectly correct in your review of those remarks and in your judgement that they did offend the member to whom they were directed and also that they offended this House. Those remarks do offend each member of this House and were not proper remarks.

I think how the matter we are now discussing should be handled is your decision as the custodian of the rules and the mores of this House. I think you have not handled it completely under standing order 20, but I must say I do not feel you are completely enclosed by having to use standing order 20. I think you have in your wisdom gone beyond standing order 20 to look for a remedy for this particular situation. The remedy you have come up with is a very interesting one and fits the circumstances.

I would say we support you on the solution you have come up with here. It may never have been used in this House before. I don’t think that is a just reason to say it cannot be used. In what is a very difficult and trying situation, I think you have come up with a very interesting solution, which I hope will lead to the honourable member withdrawing the remarks which offend all of us in this House.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I raised originally, may I point out to you, sir, that if in the event the member for High Park-Swansea does not retract, I know of no limit on the Coventry into which you have placed him by your ruling. While he may be able to sit there, evidently under your direction he will not be able to participate.

I personally do not join the government House leader in indicating that I think it is a wise move. I personally believe, sir, that if you wanted to follow an alternative you might very well have indicated, as you have, that the statements were unparliamentary. Then it is the responsibility of the government House leader to take the action to move that the member be dismissed from the service of the House until he retracts his statement. In that way, it would be definite.

But this way, you’re liable before the session is over to have six or eight people -- you’re going to have to keep a list of those you’re not going to recognize. I submit to you, sir, this is not going to be a workable addition to rule 20.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know whether the remarks made earlier by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and to some extent concurred in by the member for Kitchener, constitute an appeal against the ruling of the chair. if that is the case, so be it.

I think we are dealing with a very unusual situation, where it is no longer a question of exception taken to a remark made by one member against another member. It is a question of the chair resolving a situation that could become chronic if you allow one member to get up and speak almost with impunity, by simply saying, “I’ll say whatever I please, and I will be banished from the House for one sitting, and that’s the end of it.”

I think there needs to be a review of that standing order. I’m dealing with the standing order as it is written now. I think the situation we’re dealing with requires something of a departure from the normal. I’ve made my ruling and I stand by it. I want to tell all members of the House that a Speaker’s ruling is open to appeal. If that’s what the House wants, I would welcome it. But my ruling stands.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this is very difficult for us. You’ll appreciate the individual instance of the unparliamentary remark becomes largely irrelevant in a sense, compared to the ruling, which is the important matter now before us. In fact, the original remarks did not pertain to any member of this party, and we have no particular cause to rush into the defence of the member for Wilson Heights or the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey).

Mr. Foulds: Then why are you doing it?

Mr. S. Smith: Not at all. We are not defending any members of the House; we’re trying to defend the traditions of the House. Your ruling adds a dimension to standing order 20 which I find would make the workings of this House very difficult indeed.

There may be a precedent for your decision in British tradition, but I don’t recall in the federal House any such precedent. I wonder whether we really want to add this option to standing order 20, so that there would be lesser and greater offences -- some of which would call for expulsion, some of which would call for a kind of Coventry, a kind of being ignored, an ostracism of some kind.

I personally feel the House has worked rather well with standing order 20. I think that adding this new type of punishment, with the greatest respect, sir, would cause great difficulties. Completely ignoring the original incident and dealing only with your ruling, I feel compelled to appeal your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have been remiss. If an appeal of the chair’s ruling wants to be launched it shall be done without debate. I have allowed three members over here and another member over here to speak. I will hear, finally, the leader of the New Democratic Party and then I will put the appeal to the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate the comments made by my colleague the member for Port Arthur. This is a difficult situation for everybody in the House. I believe you have handled it with dignity and with decorum, and I believe it is incumbent on all members of the House to accept your authority as the Speaker, as we do in this caucus.

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling with regard to the incident involving the member for High Park-Swansea.

All those supporting the position of the chair will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

The ruling of the chair is sustained.

THE TIN DRUM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the absence of the Premier, (Mr. Davis) arising out of the film which we saw this morning, The Tin Drum, which I have to say, having seen many films, is a masterpiece and one of the finest works of art I have seen in the cinema for many a year.

Is the government prepared to bring in legislation to establish a classification system for films in Ontario which would ensure that, when there is a film that takes the top award at Cannes and the top award for foreign films in the academy awards, the people of Ontario may judge the film for themselves, along with the people of Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec, of every country in western Europe and of 50 states in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the reference was made to the Premier. It has been government policy for some time that the answer to the question is no. If the honourable member has a question of the Premier, then I suggest he ask it of the Premier.

His attitude today does not surprise me very much. He said on Friday exactly what his findings were going to be before he saw the film. He said the same thing on Friday. He wanted classification and not censorship. He also wanted me to fix the Ontario Board of Censors. He wanted me to intervene at the board. I know he is going to say to me it is on a matter of principle that I should intervene. Is that correct?

Mr. Foulds: The minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If it is correct because of a great principle, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that the member told me some time last week, on Tuesday or Thursday, that a principle of one law for the rich and one law for the poor was not worth the minister’s signature. Obviously things have changed in a few days.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is speaking in riddles. People across the province would like a straight answer to the question, which is whether this film, which is quite a fantastic cinematic experience, can be shown in Ontario.

Since it is now the habit of the Ontario Board of Censors to wade in with its flat feet on films that are acknowledged works of art, and since the film The Tin Drum will be remembered long after the name of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is forgotten in Ontario, will the government adopt a policy which will allow films that are works of art to be shown in Ontario, or is it the government’s policy that, to be consistent, it now intends to go down to the Art Gallery of Ontario and start to censor the statutes and paintings in that museum?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is the stupidest remark ever made by a leader in the history of this House. We hear this lofty thing about artistic works of art et cetera. Once again, the member is getting into the thing that, if it is artistic, anything goes, but if it is not so artistic in the view of the leader of the third party then perhaps everything should go. Surely the member should stick to his original position. I do not understand why he cannot understand it. Some days it looks like he went a fast five with Nicky Furlano, but that is not my problem. I said no to the first one and I am saying no now.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, agreeing that to draw a distinction between an artistic and a nonartistic movie would be utterly impossible, may I ask the minister whether he has had a chance to check with Mr. Sims to find out whether there did occur a telephone conversation the day before the meeting in which Mr. Sims was made an official offer of the one-cut version? Has the minister had a chance to check that? Right now it is the credibility of the lawyer versus the credibility of the minister, and I think that should be settled.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not think there is any dispute on the credibility of that one. I went through it last week. I said specifically, and I have gone over it both days --

Mr. S. Smith: Sims, not Brown.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, I know. The member has a mental block on this one.

There was a phone call made to the director. At the same time, or just about the same time, a phone call was made to the assistant director, Mrs. Brown. The phone call to Mrs. Brown is a very significant one, because it said, “Don’t make the offer to the board unless the board will accept it.” On the basis of the commitment that Mrs. Brown made, Mr. Sims regarded the phone call as an unofficial negotiating position. Only when the letter arrived was it considered an official position and by that time the decision had been taken.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister so clearly thinks this is an offensive film that will corrupt the people of Ontario, would he be so kind as to tell the assembly when and where he saw the film? Secondly, as a result of my seeing it today, would the minister please enlighten me as to which scenes the board wants cut from the film because, after having seen the film, I could not find four pieces of the film that even the minister would want to cut.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member is massively misinformed, even as the critic. I am not the censor. The board is an independent board. I am no more responsible for the actual decision of that board than I am for a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission, the Ontario Securities Commission, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario or the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

The people in the New Democratic Party are opening up a very interesting little scenario of having the minister overrule the board when he does not like the decision. That is not the way it is set up. I have not seen the film. Why should I see it? It is the theatres branch or the censor board that has made a decision.

Mr. M. N. Davison: The minister is the one who is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am responsible only in informing this House what has been done. The honourable member knows that and I know it.

Mr. Foulds: That is an interesting theory of ministerial responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is an accurate one.

I suggest the New Democratic Party is ploughing a new field. If they are telling me that, any time I do not like the decision of an administrative tribunal or a board which operates at arm’s length from the minister’s office, I should interfere and have it done my way, I do not think they want to put that one out to the voters. That is what the member is asking me to do.

Mr. M. N. Davison: We asked for a film classification hoard.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The answer was no, and the member’s last one was be wanted the saloons open all night in Hamilton because he was not a puritan.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, while the minister no doubt would agree that he may not be responsible for each decision, would he not agree with me that he is responsible to see that the proper and thorough procedures of the board are carried out? If so, would the minister be prepared to state to the House that the proper procedures of the board have been carried out to date in this particular circumstance?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member makes a very good point. Obviously I have responsibility to make sure that the due process in whatever form it takes or the administration procedures are carried out properly. In this case, yes, I am sure.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am tempted to say that not only is the censor board an anachronism but so is the government an anachronism; and that exempts the Minister of Natural Resources since I am going to ask him a question.

TIMBER LICENCES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware that in Dubreuilville, a logging town north of Wawa in north-central Ontario, some 300 jobs could be created by adding a second shift to the lumber mill and by the construction of a waferboard mill if there were adequate wood supplies to make that possible? Is he aware that many independent sawmills in the province are constrained by timber shortages, which are largely due to the fact that 87 per cent of the timber limits in northern Ontario are in the hands of the pulp and paper companies?

What action is the government intending to take or taking to resolve the conflict over access to timber limits between the sawmills and pulp and paper companies in the province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, surely I did not hear the honourable member correctly if I heard him say 87 per cent of the timber limits in the north are in the hands of private companies. Ninety per cent of those limits are in the hands of the crown. If the honourable member is talking about Algoma and the land owned by Algoma Central Railway -- given to them in the 1930s, I believe -- that could be correct.

I understand there are provisions made by Algoma Central to sell or give third-party agreements a variety of ways to access that timber to both the lumber and the pulp and paper industry. However, I am aware of the Dubreuilville situation; as a matter of fact, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) has brought it to my attention on several occasions. We are unable to find any crown timber available to them in an economic area to add to their present licensing.

I am afraid I have no way of requiring that private owners turn over timber to other people. We do encourage that, and on occasion we have been able to assist people through our good offices. But I have no statutory power to do what the honourable member is suggesting.

Mr. Cassidy: I trust the minister was not trying deliberately to misunderstand my question. The minister knows that some 87 per cent of the crown timber land in northern Ontario which is licensed is licensed to the pulp and paper companies. The Armson report of 1976 states specifically that the legacy of very large licensed areas in the hands of these pulp and paper companies cannot be justified when forest management is both possible and feasible. In the light of that what plans does the government have to reallocate those timber limits more equitably so that both the pulp and paper industry and the independent sawmill industry can thrive and grow?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it is fair to say, certainly in my experience to date as Minister of Natural Resources, that the vast majority of operators in the pulp and paper and lumber industries believe that they are being treated equitably.

Our problem has been that the pulp and paper industry has, at last, again had good times; their markets have improved and they want more wood to cut. In most cases we do not have it available for them. The same thing applies to the sawlog industry. Until perhaps three months ago not a week went by that I did not have at least one operator in my office to see if we could find more wood for him because he had either updated or expanded his equipment. He wanted to get on to two shifts or, if he had been on two shifts, to get on to three.

The woodfibre industry has been booming and it still is in pulp and paper. But it is not possible to find all the wood that everybody would like. If I were to say to the honourable member that I could find more wood for the Dubreuilville company, we would have a lot of people at Queen’s Park wanting to see the Minister of Natural Resources tomorrow.

There are still a number of people -- even though the sawmill operations, as I say, are soft at the moment -- who are anxious to expand if they can get the wood.

As far as those companies with crown licences are concerned, and particularly in the pulp and paper industry, we have assisted in arranging many third-party agreements where the hardwood and some of the softwood is made available by the crown licensee to another operator.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister has a letter similar to this on his desk, or somewhere in his ministry, from myself. Would the minister not agree that it is not good forest management to see an eight-inch or 10-inch or bigger butt piece of timber going into a pulpwood mill, where it is going to he ground up for pulp, when that same 10-inch butt, or larger, could very well he allocated to sawmills in the area?

The minister used to have a policy in this regard. Does he not think it is time he went back to that policy and made it necessary that the pulpwood companies allocate those areas where there is large timber and where it will not he an expensive culling process to allocate anything over a 10-inch butt to a sawmill operator?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as regards those companies that do not have their own sawlog operations, I am inclined to agree with the honourable member. The problem, as I understand it, is that in many cases there are few logs and they are a long distance from a sawmill. But we do encourage, as I am sure he is aware, that logs of larger sizes be made available to the sawlog industry as opposed to going into pulp.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware of the concern in the sawmill industry that far too many sawlogs are being used for pulp by the pulp and paper industry when they could be used to create a higher value product by going through sawmills? Is the government prepared to require that any merchantable sawlogs that go to the pulp and paper industry be diverted to sawmill operators and to require, likewise, that the pulp and paper companies take the chips from sawmills?

This would ensure that in northern Ontario we would achieve the twin objectives of stabilizing communities that are threatened and identifying opportunities for growth and jobs that could be there now if they ran the forest resources better.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) in his question pointed out that under a certain size it is not the best use of the resource to make it into saw-logs. One can make a two by four out of anything that is five inches across, but it is not a very economic way of using a resource.

For those pulp and paper companies that do not have their own sawlog operation -- and many of them do, as I am sure the honourable member is aware -- we encourage the use, where it is economically feasible, of the larger logs for the sawmill industry. However, that is assuming there is a good market for sawlogs. At the moment that is not the case.

DISPUTE AT AMR CENTRES

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Now that the minister is on record as saying the Hamilton and District Association for the Mentally Retarded has funds in its budget to bring about a settlement to the strike by its 53 workers, does he not think it is his responsibility to use some influence to have the association actually bring an end to this 10-week-old strike?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that question may overlook the fact that any agreement requires co-operation on both sides. Exerting whatever influence the honourable member is suggesting on the association alone may not achieve that.

Mr. Blundy: Is the minister not prepared to discuss this matter with the Hamilton association, or to admonish them for not meeting with the strikers to try to reach a settlement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It always surprises me when the honourable members opposite purportedly believe in the free collective bargaining process until such time as an issue arises which does not make them happy because it isn’t being resolved as quickly as they wish. Then, suddenly, the collective bargaining process is no longer important; somebody should be stepping in and directing one side or the other as to how they should conduct the negotiations.

I would indicate to the member it is my understanding the staff of the Ministry of Labour is in contact with both parties and has indicated its good offices are available as soon as either party is willing to make another move. I don’t see that there is anything additional that can be done at the moment.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, by way of suggesting at least one more thing that may be done, may I ask the minister whether he would agree to release the results of the audit, which has been done, according to the minister himself, by financial officers of the ministry and, secondly, by auditors? Would he agree to release that information in view of the fact the bargaining unit has not been given financial information on the situation of the local association?

As well, in the light of the Toronto settlement, it would be interesting, not just for the bargaining unit ‘but also for the public, to have that financial information made available with respect to the minister’s assertion that funds exist in the budget of the local association which ought to lead to a settlement.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is correct I did suggest that last week; but, again, any suggestion I have made would presuppose some willingness on both sides to reach an agreement. I don’t believe any release of information relating to the audit that was done would further the negotiations at this point.

FARM EQUIPMENT COMPANY LAYOFFS

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that Massey-Ferguson Industries Limited lost money in 1978 and 1979 as a result of losses in foreign operations and White Farm Equipment Limited may be experiencing some similar problems as a result of other than its Brantford operation, and in view of the fact that we have a trade deficit of approximately $1 billion in farm equipment, is the minister and his department at this time considering some special contingency plans to ensure that the Canadian agricultural implement industry will not be faced with possible future plant closures?

Will the minister consider the possibility of establishing a combined tractor and mining equipment manufacturing industry in Ontario as most of the tractors that are used in the resource and agricultural industries are imported from outside the country?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at opportunities though our manufacturing opportunity shows for that particular industry, as we already have in pulp and paper and in mining. To be realistic, I think we should not pretend that, short of an upturn in the market for the goods produced, there is going to be a short-term answer for the very critical situation in Brantford. There is little we can do about increasing market demands for whatever products are already being made there.

Mr.

Makarchuk: In view of the fact the uncertainty in the market is to a great extent the result of the embargo placed by Carter on the selling of wheat to Russia as well as the Canadian government commitment not to sell any more than it had committed, and in view of the fact other countries in the world -- Argentina and West Germany, for example -- are prepared to sell anything and everything at any time, will the minister perhaps lobby with the federal people to ensure that some understanding is reached between the Canadian and Russian governments as to the future of wheat sales between the two countries, because the Russians are interested in knowing and finding out what is going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be pleased to discuss that matter with my colleagues. Obviously any position we may take with regard to pressuring for more grain and wheat sales from Canada to Russia would be a matter for this government to consider in its whole context not simply in that of the situation with Massey-Ferguson.

3 p.m.

I think it is an overstatement of the situation to suggest that the embargo on sales to Russia is the cause of these particular layoffs. As the member has indicated, that firm lost money in the two years preceding the embargo in any ease. That is a firm indication that the embargo did not cause the situation.

On a personal level, I might add that I think governments have to show some resolve in international situations to shore up efforts to deal with the kinds of matters the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) brought before this House last Thursday in private members’ period.

CROWN COTTAGE LOT APPRAISALS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, who I trust will be making a statement later about the fire situation in northwestern Ontario. My question concerns crown lands.

In view of the fact that the assessor in crown lands, who assessed the crown lots in the Fort Frances area, did so on the basis of three improved lots with septic fields, roads, hydro and so on, and used that as a basis for market value on these crown-leased lots, would the minister now reconsider his program to sell these lots to people based on figures that are obviously erroneous? I will send him the information if he does not have it.

Secondly, will he find some time this summer to travel to Kenora and Fort Frances to meet with the crown lot lessors to discuss this whole matter, which they feel is an injustice to them?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, as the honourable member is aware, when we indicated that those who had leased lots would have the option of purchasing them, we said the purchase price would be the price without lessee-added improvements. There are a number of places where people have made major improvements to the shoreline and that sort of thing.

My understanding is that in some areas where the lots were made available for lease, the Ministry of Natural Resources or the crown in right of Ontario paid for other improvements, such as area improvements like roads.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not in these cases.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is a variety of problems in different parts of the province. We have indicated that if the lessee who wishes to purchase is dissatisfied with the price offered by the Ministry of Natural Resources based on the Ministry of Government Services appraisal, then we are prepared, first of all, to share in the cost of an appraisal by an appraiser of that person’s choice. We would pay half the cost of that. Failing that or in lieu of that, we have set up an appeal board to hear submissions as to why the offered price is too high.

In answer to the second part of the question, knowing the hospitality of the honourable member, the beauties of the Fort Frances area and the pickerel available in the Rainy Lake Hotel, I will try to work that in.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I will ask one short supplementary which I hope will only require one short answer.

In view of the fact that the government appraiser appraised one lot and applied that price to other lots in the subdivision, will the minister allow the crown lot lessors to have one lot appraised and apply that price to the lots in those subdivisions or in that area? There are two problems: the cost of getting a qualified appraiser to the area and the time to do that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If we were to have the same lots appraised, on the one hand, by the government appraiser and, on the other hand, by the lessee’s appraiser, it would wind up in the lap of the minister to be Solomon-like. I think the ministry would probably be very much influenced by something in between those two appraisals, assuming there was a great difference.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the continuing difficulty of these individual cases that are coming to the attention of all members of northern Ontario not point out to the minister the impossibility of any of his assessors or anyone else setting a fair market value for cottage lots? Is not the program a failure in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I know it is very difficult, but we hope to find a fair and equitable way -- fair and equitable to the people who want to buy and to the rest of the taxpayers of the province, who are really the vendors.

DUBREUILVILLE SHOOTING

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Could he report on the details of an incident involving the wounding of Constable R. Pilon in Dubreuilville early Sunday morning?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Where did this incident take place?

Mr. Lupusella: Dubreuilville.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I am not aware of it, but I will obtain information and report back, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lupusella: The constable was shot by two robbers and, given the fact that my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has been trying for two years to convince the Solicitor General to put a second Ontario Provincial Police officer in the community, is the Solicitor General now prepared to review the position he has taken against providing a second OPP constable for Dubreuilville to ensure local backup, rather than leaving them dependent on the Michipicoten detachment more than 50 miles way?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not think that issue has been raised, to my knowledge. The issue that has been raised, as I recall, is the suggestion that there automatically be a second man in an OPP cruiser. That was the issue that I recall was raised by the member for Algoma. I said to him on that occasion, and others, and I repeat, that obviously in certain circumstances a second police constable is warranted, but it is not warranted in each and every situation. The OPP, given their modest resources, must utilize them in such a way as to provide the maximum service.

An automatic requirement that two police officers be in every cruiser at a certain time of the day would not, in my view, be a wise utilization of police resources.

I do not recall any issue raised about a second officer in this one detachment. I will look into that aspect of it.

FUND-RAISING PROMOTERS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; my question relates to the activities of Madasa Attractions of Michigan, acting in the capacity of promoters for charitable fund-raisers. What protection do Ontario charitable organizations have when a non-Ontario promotion agency, such as Madasa, fails to live up to its contractual commitments, particularly in the Kitchener-Waterloo area the Sertoma Club was left holding the bag with a loss of $4,000? For example, could the minister require the promoters to post a bond?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified as to how you can hire a fund-raiser and be left holding the bag. If the member could communicate the details to me, I would be able to give him some assistance.

3:10 p.m..

We have cautioned service clubs and so forth about their responsibilities. Basically, when one hires an outside company -- by outside, I mean other than their own members -- to solicit funds on one’s behalf, one had best be awfully careful of the manner in which those funds are solicited, that there is an accurate description given to the public as to where exactly the funds will go and the nature of the event, and that the utmost precautions are taken in contractual relationships so that the person does not vanish.

I say to the honourable member I am totally unaware of that company and what it did. If he would like a detailed answer, perhaps he could give me all the circumstances in writing and I will be very glad to respond to him here within a day or two.

Mr. Sweeney: I will do that for the first part of my question. There is a second part to it, however.

Is there any protection under Ontario law at the present time for Ontario citizens who receive phone calls from such promoters, deceiving the callers into believing it is the charity itself that is calling, especially when we discover later on these promoters are taking in considerably in excess of half the money that is raised?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There are two routes for the person who is being called by the boiler shop. I think the member would agree it is a boiler-shop operation. The first one is through this ministry in terms of civil regulatory law. We can move in and establish the validity of the operation, particularly just what message is being disseminated from the boiler operation. Secondly, a person can go the Criminal Code route through the regional or municipal police or through the anti-rackets branch of the Ontario Provincial Police. If memory serves me correctly, we have had some similar incidents where both those approaches at a particular time in the investigation were merged.

I say to the honourable member -- and it is always in hindsight -- I cannot emphasize enough the difficulties a service club, a community group, a charity, a nonprofit group or a religious group -- I give it the broadest possible definition -- gets into when it decides it will hire a professional fund-raiser, rather than relying on its own members. The history of Ontario is dotted with disasters. They may not be the stuff of which headlines are made and they may not be the stuff from which long jail sentences result. But they do result in the fact that the public is left with a bad taste in its mouth and, in the final analysis, it is the public that is going to be contributing.

What happens is they honestly believe the person doing the phone solicitation is a member of the organization, and therefore they contribute. When they find out it is a boiler-shop operation -- in this case, as the member says, from the state of Michigan, an operation that is probably well known to authorities -- they are left with that bad taste.

If the member will give me the details, I will give a full statement on it.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to sit from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 1980.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to travel to the Burtch Correctional Centre in Brantford, Ontario, on Wednesday, June 4, 1980, and that the time remaining for the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services be credited against the time allocated for the said estimates, and that the provisions of

section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be referred to the standing committee on resources development for consideration within the 17 hours already allocated to that ministry, and that the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be referred to the same committee for consideration within the 23 hours already allocated to that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: The purpose of this bill is to declare that the designations “member of the Legislative Assembly” and “MLA” are the official designations of the persons who are elected to the Legislative Assembly. The bill provides that only members of the Legislative Assembly are entitled to use either of the official designations in association with themselves while sitting as elected members of the assembly and during the succeeding election period.

INTERIM ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER I I I

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the interim answer to question 170 standing on the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2432.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

On vote 603, local government affairs program:

Mr. G. I. Miller: I believe we finished on Friday with a couple of questions to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. One question was in regard to the Great Lakes flood damage. The minister indicated that the funding for that program was only available to municipalities on an 80:20 basis. I would like to know if that is correct.

The other question related to the assistance program for protection of shoreline property. That again is available to property owners in municipalities on the basis of eight per cent. I wonder if he would like to bring us up to date on how much money was utilized in that program and give us a little background information on it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the Great Lakes flood damage payments to municipalities, the balance of grants approved in prior years that will be paid in 1980-81 amounts to $136,866, with some audit adjustments of $7,757, which makes a total of $144,623. That is to three municipalities, the townships of Sarnia, Pelee and Gasfield South. There have been no new payments approved to date in 1980-81 under the Great Lakes flood damage payments to municipalities.

3:20 p.m.

Approved in prior years for five municipalities, with the balance to be paid in 1980-81, was $93,820. They are the town of Dunnville, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, the township of Harwich, the city of Nanticoke and the city of Port Colborne. That group and the other three I just gave you represent $237,443. The total in the 1980-81 estimates of $440,000 includes funds for unanticipated payments which we cannot designate or know what they might be. That is the amount under the Great Lakes flood damage program.

Under the loans to municipalities for property owners, the shoreline property assistance program, 1980-81 payments, as of May 31, April to May debentures, are $235,100; the number of municipalities involved, 14; and the number of individual loans, 47. The total in the 1980-81 estimates is $560,000, of which $235,100 has been committed.

Mr. G. I. Miller: In other words, there has not been a lot of money utilized and there has not been a great expense as far as your budget is concerned. With regard to the disaster relief fund, in particular the tornado that went through western Ontario last year, how much money was raised locally and how much was contributed by the province through the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have the most up-to-date figures we have. Final claims entered by property owners against the disaster fund, I want to make clear, were less than the original estimate of $20 million. A great many of the losses were covered by insurance and some losses were for luxury items and other items that were not eligible under the fund.

However, on May 5, 1980, the local disaster relief committee was disbanded. Last week it submitted its audited report which is as follows: revenue donations, $3,766,549.98; interest earned, $87,206.26; provincial payments to May 15, 1980, $3,100,000, for a total of $6,953,756.24 in the fund. That is the money collected and the money paid out by the provincial government. The $6,953,000 is the revenue. The expenditures paid to claimants are $6,959,480.38 and the administration and related costs are $146,110.47, for a total of $7,105,590.85.

Therefore, there is a difference between expenditures and revenues of $151,834.61; and that difference will be paid by the province. Therefore, the total provincial contributions will come to $3,251,834.61.

As members hear these figures, they can see the promised ratio of three to one has not proven out. That was why when I first looked at the statement, that it struck me that we are paying on the basis of one to one. What has happened is the amount of the total provincial contribution will be just about one to one, maybe even a little less than one to one. This is due to the large number of donations received from the members of the public, the business community and the municipalities around the province, by that area.

In other words, the disaster committee set up operation, collected money and received about $3.7 million. We matched that money with enough money to pay all the claims that were submitted and judged by the committee to be eligible to be paid. As I said, it worked out to about one to one.

If the claims had come to $12 million, we would have paid on the three to one basis. In other words, they raised their $3.7 million; if they had $12 million in claims, we would have ended up contributing the provincial share up to that amount.

Mr. G. I. Miller: One final question: How much money was loaned out at 6 per cent interest? Wasn’t there some money made available at that rate? I would like to make it clear that it is obvious with the response from around the province and the particular area, that money did come in well. The damage wasn’t as great as was anticipated and we are thankful for that too, but the province still didn’t have to contribute as much as they anticipated in the very beginning.

Again, the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) has been trying to make the point that there was a disaster in his municipality and the government, at this time, has not seen fit to give them any special aid -- even on a loan basis. I guess it gets back to the resolution I introduced back on May 1, where if a disaster relief fund program was established, money could be borrowed at a reasonable rate of interest which would be beneficial for the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I understand it nine guarantees for six per cent loans were approved for a total of approximately $366,000.

Mr. G. I. Miller: How could one qualify for those particular loans?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those loans were handled by the Ontario Development Corporation. They were available for repair, restoration of business buildings and equipment to pre-disaster conditions. The approved applicants borrowed the money from the local banks, as I understand it, at six per cent and they were guaranteed by ODC. They paid the banks the difference between the six per cent and the prime rate that was in effect at that time. The maximum loan was equal to replacement costs less insurance proceeds or $100,000.

Mr. G. I. Miller: One final comment I would like to make is about the second homes and the loss of livestock. I think there were something like 200 head of livestock destroyed and 25 to 35 second farm homes, for which they were not able to get any assistance. They were requested by a couple of municipalities. The township of Burford and the city of Nanticoke passed a resolution and sent a letter to that effect, asking the minister for support for those two areas. I wonder, would the minister give further consideration to those requests, or is it now final they will not receive any further help either by loan or from the capital fund?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is my understanding, as far as the local fund is concerned, the local disaster committee decided that second homes and livestock would not be covered. As far as the ODC loans are concerned, they were not eligible for those. The statement that I just gave was on the ODC loans for the businesses. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food handled the farm loans. They were available in this area for the restoration of farm buildings and equipment to pre-disaster conditions.

Mr. G. I. Miller: At six per cent interest?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. The applicants were able to borrow the money from the bank at six per cent, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food paid to the bank the difference between the six per cent and the prime rate that was in effect at the time. Residences, livestock and crops were not covered by the money provided through these loans.

The maximum loan was equal to replacement cost less insurance proceeds and amounts received from the disaster fund, or $100,000. Thirty-eight guarantees for loans were approved, for a total of approximately $1,831,880 to farms, under that part of the program. So there were the ODC loans of $366,000 for businesses and the ODC loans of $1,831,880 for restoration of farm buildings and equipment.

Mr. G. I. Miller: But they did not include livestock?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They did not include livestock or second residences; or, in fact, first residences. The first residences were not included in the loans. They, of course, were eligible under the capital fund.

Mr. Bradley: Very briefly, under this vote on local government, I would like to discuss government that really is not local, because it is regional government. I think the minister is very familiar with my views on the experience in the regional municipality of Niagara with regional government, but there are a couple of items I would like to bring to his attention once gain.

First of all, I would say that the opposition to regional government has not diminished significantly in our area; at least I couldn’t detect it. Last year, I did one of those surveys that we do with the newsletters we send out to our constituents. I received about 2,100 or 2,200 replies. Eighty per cent of the people in my constituency expressed opposition to regional government and, if it were put on a municipal ballot in the city of St. Catharines, I suspect the figure might even be higher than that

In the last survey, and I am just about to release the results of this particular one, which I conducted at the end of March this year, I included a question that I had discussed with the minister before which was regarding the construction of a new headquarters. The question I put on the questionnaire was, “Do you think that municipal tax dollars should be used to build a new headquarters for regional government?” Twelve per cent said yes and 88 per cent said no; in actual figures that was 298, yes; 2,221, no.

I suspect, out of the 298, a number were probably regional employees who had replied to the questionnaire, or people in the construction industry who would look forward to the new palace on the hill being constructed.

I believe the last time the estimates of this ministry came up I discussed the possibility of the minister intervening with the municipality at least to convey the message that his ministry was interested in restraint in terms of financial expenditures, particularly those which would not be essential expenditures. At that time, he expressed the viewpoint that this was a local decision, and I appreciate the fact that the minister does not want to get involved in local decisions on every occasion.

I would suggest to the minister, however, since the government has decided it is not going to implement regional government in any other areas, at least in the foreseeable future, that he prevail upon regional governments in this province, specifically the regional municipality of Niagara, to exercise the kind of restraint we in this Legislature hope local government will exercise.

The last thing we need in the Niagara Peninsula at the present time is a new palace on the brow of the escarpment to house regional government. If they wanted to make regional government popular, or at least acceptable, they would avoid sticking the knife in the back of the taxpayers in the Niagara region and turning that knife by building a new regional headquarters.

Last week they announced the purchase of the land from Brock University. Some people directly involved with regional government are itching to get the first shovel in the ground to get the palace constructed. I am saying to the minister that in his discussions, informal or otherwise, with regional chairmen, he might well prevail upon them to exercise caution in the expenditure of dollars in those areas that are not absolutely essential.

I recognize they say this will establish an identity for regional government, which really means it will solidify their position. That position is not very strong in the eyes of the average individual citizen in these areas or of many of the people who sit on the local municipal councils as opposed to the regional council.

I had about 2,519 people reply to this last survey. I recognize surveys are not necessarily always accurate, but the government has been involved in the taking of polls. When we look at the results -- that is, the policies brought forward by the government -- we recognize that the government does at least have some faith in polis, although they may be more professional than the ones I have conducted.

I bring this to the minister’s attention, first, so that he will express that caution to the chairman and, second, so that he will once again take a look at local government across Ontario -- I will speak parochially now and say within the Niagara Peninsula -- to see whether it can possibly work better.

My view is it can work better if many of the powers that have gone to the regional government are returned to the area municipalities where there is accountability and the politicians are familiar with the projects and programs in effect. There is a commonality of interests. At the present time, the regional government is too remote. It lacks financial accountability. The mayor of Port Colborne is not really familiar with what is going on in the city of St. Catharines, for instance; so he either relies on the staff, who are often interested in getting projects under way, or he relies on the politician in St.

Catharines. It becomes a back-scratching session where we trade off roads back and forth.

I remember the former member for St. Catharines at the opening of a bridge over a waterway in St. Catharines saying: “This is proof that regional government works. Here we have a $2-million structure, and it shows that regional government is working.” The question I asked at that time was how many bridges and roads in the rest of the region it cost for that to be demonstrated as a benefit to the city of St. Catharines. I suggest that St. Catharines taxpayers paid for many more works that were not absolutely necessary at the time but were commenced because they needed to trade off to get this particular structure completed.

The regional municipality of Niagara has some very good people working for it. There are some excellent people among its employees. I think we recognize that. We appreciate in many cases the job they are trying to do. But unfortunately we see an empire being built in many areas of the province as the regional municipalities want to assume more powers. They recognize the province wants to transfer some powers back.

Certain area municipalities start saying: “It is in our interest to get the region to do it, because they are doing it at the other end of the peninsula. We are crazy if we don’t turn our roads over to the region in a specific area and get these works undertaken at regional expense as opposed to at our own expense.” Again we have lack of financial accountability and of financial restraint, because everybody wants to get as much from the pie as possible.

It can be avoided, once again, by transferring many of these powers back to area municipalities, even if perhaps we have to have an amalgamation of some of those municipalities. That may or may not he a solution the minister would be interested in.

3:40 p.m.

I have said this on other occasions. One of the reasons I am standing in this Legislature today, rather than a government party member standing here, is regional government Mr. McKeough, the former minister, said that was a courageous step and he was prepared to pay the price.

I suggested to the member when he became the minister that because he had no background in implementing regional government, he had the opportunity to make innovative changes because he did not have to say his baby was wrong. It was something new he could start with, and I implored him to do so at that time.

The minister has been in the office a couple of years now. I think he is doing a credible job as the minister. I suppose I should not say a good job as we near an election because that can come back to haunt our members. I think the minister is very sincere in what he is attempting to do as a minister, and he recognizes there are not easy solutions to many of these problems.

I ask him to have his officials, or particularly the minister himself, review regional government because the officials sometimes are ingrained in these things. In fact, I do not think Mr. McKeough was necessarily the architect of regional government. It was probably some of his officials in conjunction with him who convinced the Conservative Party it would be reasonable to implement it. I ask the minister to review regional government and how it is working on a periodic basis. He has had Mr. Archer in with his travelling circus.

I do not think that was very useful, but I suggest that perhaps next year he take another look at it on an ongoing basis to see which powers might be returned and how we can save the taxpayers money, because the regional levy went up substantially.

I think what the minister is going to see happen in Niagara is what we are seeing in other areas. The local politicians are going to say: “Let’s put it on the ballot. Let’s try to secede.” St. Catharines tried to secede in 1971 and was not successful, but a bag of money came over to alleviate the pain of regional government at that time.

All I ask the minister at this time to do is review it and see if he cannot make local government work better. I am sure his goal is to make local government work as efficiently as possible. The erection of a palace on the brow of the escarpment will not do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I still must say, Mr. Chairman I stick by my original thoughts on these matters, which are always not to tread into areas where I have no jurisdiction. Regional councils do have certain powers and jurisdiction to build their own headquarters building and a few of them have been opened recently. I would not presume to interfere in a way that would seem we were trying to be dictatorial.

Having said that, I do not disagree with the member about the need in the Niagara Peninsula. I met the regional council at its present office and I saw nothing wrong with that office. I do not see any particular need to build a palace to give regional government some kind of focus in the Niagara Peninsula.

I am offering the member my opinion on it. I am not saying I am going to do anything more than offer my opinion to him today. It is not my prerogative to go around and start saying to them, “Don’t you build that,” just as they cannot come up here and tell us we should not build a new office building in Kingston or a new LCBO warehouse in Whitby. They may or may not agree with those decisions, but I guess we have to make them.

As for reviewing municipal government in the Niagara Peninsula, we are always happy to look at ways to make local government work better and we will always be studying those ways. Where that will lead us and what we will do, I cannot tell the member at this time, but I would never say that what we have is perfect and that we are never going to look at any change in it. We are always going to be looking at ways to make it better. I think say friend knows I do not particularly like these big fancy reviews we have had. I do not think they are necessarily the best way. I like to see the local people coming up with some suggestions.

We had a discussion in the House the other day about direct elections. I am not a big fan of direct elections to the upper-tier government. There are direct elections in the Niagara region. I do not know that it makes that region work any better than the others where they do not have direct elections. It certainly has not made regional government in Niagara more successful or more popular with people.

When some of the arguments are put forward to me about direct elections here, I look at some of the other areas where there are direct elections and I say, why take something that is working very well, and I think regional government in Metro Toronto has worked well, and bring an innovation that is not necessarily working that well in other areas?

All I can tell the member is that we will be looking at ways to make it work better in all areas of the province and in Niagara, but I do not know what we will be doing at this point in time.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into this discussion on regional government. I was one of the members of the original committee that recommended regional government. That is quite a long time ago now, as the minister remembers.

At that time, we had close to 1,000 municipalities across Ontario and we felt they were not efficient, particularly the municipalities with a population of less than 1,000. They would not hire the staff, the equipment or the machinery to do the job that should be done.

The committee went through this whole process and decided that somehow or other we had to reduce the number of municipalities, make them larger, spread them out across certain territories so that cities in the hinterland would be part and parcel of one municipality. This would, of course, mean they would have a bigger tax base and that the struggle for industrial assessment would be minimized because no matter where the industry might be located in that larger municipality, it would still pay taxes into the one treasury.

Most of us at that time thought in terms of one unit for the municipality. That may be one of our problems. Instead of carving out larger municipalities with one government -- I guess for political purposes, because politically it looked as if that kind of step would be impossible t that time -- we carved out a larger unit, but we also brought several smaller municipalities within that unit so we had municipalities within the larger regional government. We had two power centres, one big one and half a dozen at the second level; so we had a squabble there.

The second thing that happened was that somehow or other we failed to give to those regional municipalities a proper tax or financial base. We did not work that out properly, and that was a subject of much discussion in this House. Somehow or other, that taxing or financial base was not adequate; so there has been a lot of unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

I do not think the route we should go is to divest the regional municipalities of certain powers and give them back to the smaller municipalities. Perhaps we should be looking at unitary government within these regions so we would have a council looking at the total picture and not at this town versus that town or the advantages of this area versus that one. Inevitably, that must happen, even in small municipalities. Certain areas get sidewalks when other areas go without them. Certain areas get the swimming pools and the libraries when other ones are clamouring for them.

Very often it is the areas with the largest tax bases, the well-to-do areas, that get first attention. They have a little more clout perhaps, but I think that is inevitable. In the regional governments, if we can work them out, we will still get some of that, but I think that struggle between the two levels of government can be eliminated.

3:50 p.m.

I wonder whether the minister is giving any thought to that kind of step, which at tin time, admittedly, was to come. Even the minister at that time looked upon this dual level as part and parcel of the total process which must come to its ultimate culmination.

Should we not be seriously thinking of these two things: (1) adequate financial bases and (2) instead of divesting power, bringing more power into the hands of the regional governments? Perhaps some powers that are now in the hands of the province should be given to the regions. I know some progress has been made along this line. But these are the kinds of things that many people are discussing today, and I think they should be put into the hopper. Perhaps the minister should give us some idea of what he’s thinking.

The unhappiness that exists in some these regional governments is there. It is something we cannot ignore. We should be asking ourselves what are the things that must be done in order to do away with this unhappiness. What must be done to make the regions more efficient and effective, to give them the kind of basis they need to give them a better kind of organization and minimize the struggle within, and perhaps come out with the kind of thing which many of us, at the time that committee was working, thought was going to come out of all this hassle?

Perhaps the minister could express himself on this, and perhaps we could enter into some further dialogue.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my friend. He had been around in municipal government for a good number of years before he was in this House, and he has had a great background in things here in Metro, as well as generally in the province. I appreciate his comments.

I do not have any plans to move in the direction of more unitary government. One of the member’s suggestions was that perhaps one of the answers to regional government was to create a larger unit. That is the example I used in this House the other day about greater Winnipeg, which went from a Metro Toronto type of operation to a directly elected upper tier, as I recall. Another level of government was added: lower tier, upper tier, directly elected. That did not work; so the government of the day, which I guess was an NDP government, created a unitary system in Winnipeg.

I do not know whether it is working well or not. I suppose it is working. It has got to be working. Winnipeg is thriving and prospering. I do not know that it is working any better than the two-tier system we have here in Metropolitan Toronto.

I think of the regions we have in this province and of the fact that those regions were created by a number of amalgamations to give us the cities we have within the regions. I think of Markham and the towns and townships that were brought in to create what is now the huge town of Markham. I think of Cambridge and some of the other lower-tier municipalities that have been created within the regions. There was a feeling of some people in those areas that they should never have lost their identity, their little town that had its own individual local government. Then I think of the member wanting to create one large unitary system.

I suppose where this is most called for regularly is in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. There, the suggestion is that we should create one large Hamilton, or Hamilton-Wentworth, rather than the two-tier regional system we have there now. I cannot buy that at this time, and I do not see that as a solution at this point to the problems of better local government or as a means of improving regional government. I do not think that would be n solution.

The matter of turning over more of the province’s powers to local and regional governments is a good theory, and we have been trying to do that, where possible. We have been trying to do that through the establishment of bodies and through giving bodies like district health councils and others a lot of the powers that normally might be done by provincial departments making those decisions at the local level. I think that is a good thing, and I think we are moving in that direction in a lot of areas. It is not easy, but one sets one’s mind to do it.

I remember five years ago we decided that most of the planning functions could be turned over. We still have not turned over a lot of them. We still have an elaborate set of procedures whereby planning decisions have to come up to the Ministry of Housing and go back to the local level. We have not turned them over to the regions although we have turned some things over. The new Planning Act, as I recall, points us in this direction in some way; so there are areas where we are trying to do this with municipalities.

The third point the member raised was about a better tax base for local government. I think that boils down to better financing for local government. We are not looking at any new taxing sources for local government. We have looked at that very carefully because there are always requests for new sources to cover special projects. If Ottawa wants a convention centre, it suggests that perhaps it should have the right to put its own sales tax on hotels. This would get the municipalities into the sales tax field and a number of other fields.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and I have looked at these things but decided it is far better and more economical for the province to collect from its revenue sources -- sales tax, income tax, corporation tax, et cetera -- and transfer that money than to have a fragmented system where some municipalities might use some of those other tax sources.

Basically, we still find that we have the property tax system as the main system for municipalities, with all its imperfections and all its perfections, whatever they are. We work towards trying to find a better way to use the property tax system to serve the needs of municipalities. I do not see any immediate change in that area in the very short term. In the long-range future there may be, but in the short term I do not see any particular change from the property tax being the basic source of revenue for municipalities, along with the whole area of fees and services that they are able to charge. I must say that I am a supporter of that revenue source for municipalities.

The member may recall that a few years ago we introduced a bill in here on licensing in order to reform the licensing procedures for municipalities. We are still working on that bill, but one of its provisions was that you could not charge more than $5 for a licence. It represented a thinking that said you do not raise money through licences or fees.

I happen to believe that you should at least raise enough money to cover the services you provide to those that you are licensing. In other words, you can have a fee-for-service basis here. If you are going to license a whole segment of industry in a municipality you should at least be able to get enough money back on licences to pay for that service. You probably should not be able to make an actual revenue income for the municipality from licensing services, but certainly the philosophy that has to be adapted is that you can at least recover the provision of all those services you provide to your various client groups in the municipality through fees and licences.

Municipalities do get a lot of revenue from these sources. When we get that licensing bill back in here, it will have provisions in it that will allow municipalities to make a proper return for the money they expend in that area.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the minister that the problem is one of a financial base for the regional government. When I mentioned the tax base before, I corrected myself in each case and said there should be some better financial arrangement. That arrangement should be done by using the power of the province for raising funds and then having a better sort of distribution.

4 p.m.

We have discussed many times in this House the tremendous natural resources base we have in this province and the fact that we are not getting as much as we should out of those natural resources, out of our minerals and timber. If we would think of using them as a taxing base, as a source of revenue for the provincial government, then we would have far more largess to distribute and to make regional governments more viable.

There is no question that this matter of identity is a tough one. We get into certain habits and we rather dislike to see too much change. In the political field that is true in one area, which has certain buildings in the centre, certain institutions and certain leaders. They do not want to change that. I suppose that is the strength of the Tory party over the last 35 years. Because people do not like change, we have not got the change some of us think ought to come in Ontario. That is a fact of nature and we have to accept that. But surely sometimes that change should be urged on a little faster by the ministry here and by the government itself.

I am wondering whether the minister has given up entirely on this whole matter of the development of regional government or whether he is still thinking of setting up more regional governments within Ontario. One of his remarks may have been a bit crucial here. The size of the municipalities we tried to set up may have been a little too large. Instead of setting up a city state with a couple of cities in the hinterland, we set up too many states with three or four or five cities within the hinterland. It may be the step we should have taken was smaller regions and more of them.

I do not know. One never can go back in history and live it over again. I am wondering whether this might not have been one of the steps we should have taken at that time. It may have been more successful. We would not have had this large area where the pulling and hauling inside frustrate so much and where, as the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) points out, there is a desire to set up the Taj Mahals, the great headquarters.

Then along with that go the larger salaries and the bigger departments which demand again higher salaries at the head of those departments and more at the second level of departments and so on. It may be we should have thought in smaller terms, rather than the large terms we thought of in those days gone by.

Has the minister given up? Is this dream we had years ago, that we were going to build more regional governments and regionalize the whole province, dead now? Have the difficulties we have encountered been so great that this government has decided there shall be no more regional governments in Ontario? If so, where does that leave all the smaller municipalities we still see dotted around the countryside?

Municipalities of very limited population elect their councils, their reeves and their mayors. Then those councils, reeves and mayors are frustrated because they cannot afford the kinds of services, equipment and technology which this age should be giving them and which should be brought into use to service the people of Ontario.

I wonder whether this ministry and this government have given up and whether there is any hope whatsoever of this process continuing, even though we may try now to find ways and means of making the governments that are now in effect more workable. I wonder whether the minister could express himself in this regard and tell us whether we have reached a dead end as far as this government is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, all I can do is repeat what I have said many times in the last year. We are not planning any new regional governments. We do not have any in the works and we are not thinking of them. We do not have any plans out there percolating around the developed regional governments because, if my friend looks over what has happened in this province, most of the growth areas, if not all of the growth areas of this province, where a justification for regional government could be made, are now covered with regional governments.

In the areas that are not now covered with regional governments the member says: “What do the mayor and council of a small area in the province that doesn’t have a regional government look forward to? What do they do?” I suggest to him that most of them breathe a sigh of relief and look forward to the fact that they are not going to be in a regional government. I do not think they have to worry too much about that; they are not worried about that. Even if a case could be made for their areas having a regional government, I would suggest they would not be very happy about it.

What kind of options are open? You can’t always have a closed door because, as I said to my friend a few minutes ago, you always have to be looking at ways to improve the system. One of the things we have adopted is that if a local area decides a restructuring can occur in its area, basically we have called it a restructured county. I think that is something that is forgotten in this province. We have had two-tier government in this province for more than 100 years. We have had the county system with a quasi-second tier, with lower-tier municipalities.

There may be a way in some areas of this province that you can restructure the county. We have done it in Oxford county; that is one of our examples of a restructured county. We started to do it by working with the local people in Northumberland county, but when the kind of restructuring that was going to occur was written into a piece of legislation they, in their wisdom, decided they did not want to proceed and we did not proceed. That, I would suggest to the member, underlines the approach we are taking today.

If a county council and the municipalities within that county want to consider a restructuring, we have the manpower and staff to help them and can go in to show them some of the ways to do financial calculations and get them the information. They can look at all the facts and we can help them write some legislation. If they want to do it, we will help them do so and we will bring the legislation here. If they do not want to do it and it is not acceptable to them, we are not going to push them to do it. But I suggest to the member, one option open to some of the other areas of this province is restructured counties. --

The other option and the other place that we are putting our eggs, so to speak, if you can use the analogy of putting your eggs in the basket, is we are looking at the whole area of amalgamations and annexations and of a much fairer process. To a degree it is based on the labour-management type of model where the municipalities, in some cases a larger urban area with those rural areas around it, can go through a process that does not involve the confrontation process, with large legal fees, that we have known in the past.

They can look at the amalgamation/annexation process, work with the mediator process and so on and come up with answers, as I hope we are going to arrive at in the situation involving Brantford township, Brant county and the city of Brantford. That is a situation where at one time they were looking at regional government, and at another time at a protracted, bitter confrontation dispute. Perhaps we are now at the point where we will be able to bring into this House a piece of legislation that represents what all the communities have agreed to as the way the people and the future of that area can best be served.

If the amalgamation/annexation model we have tried out in Brantford township area can be put into some kind of general legislation, I think it will represent one of the things that will be used and is used in a lot of the areas of the province now, rather than a restructuring approach. It will help them get at their problems.

As my friend knows, there are a number of areas of the province where this is a problem. The Sarnia area is still a problem; the Barrie area is still a problem. I guess that example is the one that has pushed us into looking at some new methods, because the Barrie-Innisfil annexation is still going on. It is costing millions and no one seems to know when it will end. It may be getting close but we do not know yet.

That is a bit of what I see happening in the future. But we have no regional government studies or plans or any areas that will say, “Yes, we will put a regional government in,” because we just do not have any and we are not planning to do any.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Young: The minister has just told us that he is looking forward to certain changes in municipal government in the future, but he has discarded the idea of using the name “regional government” for those changes. In other words, it is a change of name, a change of strategy, but the process inevitably will go on -- I think that is what the minister said to us -- under a more voluntary method. There will not be quite so much compulsion and not quite so much wielding of the big stick: “You get together, or else.” There will be this kind of encouragement taking place.

As far as county governments are concerned, they have never been regional governments in the sense of the now regional governments. I am wondering, as counties are restructured, whether there is again a long-term view that they should be unitary governments rather than a whole conglomeration of smaller municipalities. That is one of the things we have to look forward to and try to work out for the future.

I can see the sense of what the minister says, where we have had so much difficulty with the regional government foisted upon us by the Duke of Chatham-Kent and others in days gone by. He is not giving up, and that is encouraging to know. These municipalities that are breathing a sigh of relief and saying, “Sure, that’s fine, we are not going to be dragooned into this regional government idea,” have to recognize the fact that development in the future will take place at these growth centres the minister mentioned.

The development will take place where regional government exists and where stronger municipal government exists. If the smaller municipalities in the areas where they do not want this sort of thing face up to that fact and realize they are going to be bypassed by the development of the future, they have to accept their fate.

I hope the minister is going to do more than just tacitly agree When the municipalities come to him and say: “We want to amalgamate, We want to join together; we want to build a county unit.” I hope he will be actively encouraging this process so that the number of smaller municipalities will be gradually merged into the larger unit, and we will have more efficiency and more effective government in this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I do not want to leave the wrong impression. We are not going out suggesting to any counties that the restructure and using that as a subterfuge to introduce regional government in another form. It is the other way around. Counties may come to us and say, “We have looked at our problems and our situation, and we would like to enter into this kind of arrangement.” If they do that, we will do it. But we do not have a list of counties we are going to descend upon and say, “You should restructure.” I want to make that very clear.

We are certainly not looking at restructured counties as unitary systems. We are looking at a restructured county as an embodiment of the county system, which is a two-tier system; the local municipalities are preserved and there is a larger tier that covers the total area for certain services over the whole area.

I cannot think of all the examples, but counties have served that purpose -- maybe not in a completely perfect way -- even in their present status, which is, as we said, more than 100 years old. Originally they were created probably to do very much the same kind of thing as regional governments were created to do in the last 10 to 20 years, and they have done that over the years.

The welfare function to a large degree has become a county function across this province. There are probably very few municipalities that have their own welfare social service operation. It has become a county operation. I think that has improved the operation as opposed to what it would have been if the counties had not been willing to take that on.

We have had county road operations where the same principle applies within, say, Metropolitan Toronto where the metropolitan roads are looked after by the metropolitan government and there are the local roads, the county roads, which the county has looked after to give a system of through roads and a good road system in a total county, unrelated to all the municipalities that make up that county. There have been county boards of health and in many cases combined boards of health which have looked after the public health functions over a whole area.

Through the county system, we move to carry out a lot of the functions that people see in two-tier governments, and they have been carried out well. It may be that some county, when it looks at its operations, will say, “We could do it a little better if we restructured.” If they want to do that, we will help them. But we do not have a list of counties that we are going to descend upon to suggest that they restructure.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I suppose this has been brought up many times before in the minister’s estimates, but with regard to our municipal financing and so forth, I was just noticing some of the local reports as the municipalities set their tax rates and mill rates for this year, and the problem that some of them have and where the tax money goes that they have to assess in the municipalities.

I notice in the township of Sandwich South that for each dollar the township collects, 12 cents goes to the county, 15 cents goes to the township and 73 cents is paid to the school boards. That is the whole gambit of municipal financing, which I know has been brought up on a number of occasions, with unconditional grants, conditional grants, highway grants, police grants and the whole hotchpotch of grants from the different ministries. Not many people actually understand a lot of them.

It is frustrating for a municipal councillor when he tries to hold the line on municipal spending and then the school boards feel they require more money. In some places they have declining enrolment but they still have to keep the schools going, although not all of them. They are closing one in my area; however, I guess everyone has that going on in some areas of their municipalities.

In another township it is a little different. The school boards take 58 cents and the balance goes to the county and the municipality. I realize they are not all the same and that is because of their tax structure, but it has been a concern for many years. I do not know if we ever find a panacea for tax structures and those with the most ability to pay. I do not know if we will ever get to that.

Probably what has hurt the municipalities most in the last few years is not this ministry, but the education grants, which went down from 60 cents to about 51 to 52 cents in our area. Boards could not seem to cut their spending; so their share of the total taxes in the municipalities is going up to anywhere from 58 to 75 per cent of the total taxes collected in the municipality. No doubt we are going to have to address ourselves to this matter eventually, because I think certain taxes should be paid by the municipalities and the household residents.

I suppose another argument against it has to do with the Ministry of the Environment, which is constructing sewage systems in many municipalities. The Ministry of the Environment, with some money from the federal government, is paying a fair amount of that cost in some of the municipalities. It is a hotchpotch, and I know the minister is aware of that.

I was looking up some remarks I made about 13 years ago before I got elected to this fair edifice and place. I had a suggestion -- and I do not know if it was my own original idea or not -- with regard to education costs. We had a lot of problems prior to 1970 with regard to school taxes on farm land. The Minister of Agriculture and Food finally accepted one of our suggestions and a resolution that part of farm taxes be refunded by the province. That helped a lot.

It seems to me in one of my conversations or one of my speeches someplace before being in this body -- I think it was when I was on municipal council -- I was suggesting at that time that as part of the education costs the province bears it should pay for the teachers throughout Ontario and leave the municipalities the responsibility of furnishing the locations and the buildings. I still think it would not have been too bad an idea, although we know that in some areas of Ontario, outside of the heavily builtup areas the grants run up to as high as 90 per cent.

I was basing my speech and my thoughts at that time on the builtup areas in southern Ontario where, if I remember correctly, the professional costs of the school boards ran in the vicinity of 70 to 75 per cent of their total costs and the busing, the buildings and so forth covered the balance. At least then under that type of circumstances, the local municipality and the local school board would know what they were responsible for.

However, I am sure there are many people who would not agree with that type of situation, and nothing ever came of it. But I am not sure we are not that far from looking at something similar to that, where we have some sort of a percentage, whether it should be 60 per cent or whether it should be even higher. At one time back in 1967 and 1971 -- and I do not know whether it has changed -- the policy of our party, if I remember correctly, was that we would assume about 80 per cent of the total cost of education and 20 per cent would be borne by the local municipality.

This government did go up to about 60 per cent, and now it has gone down to about 51 to 52 per cent through the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). There have been some thoughts and study given to grants, but it seems to me we should be coming down to some serious consideration of just what grant structures we should have so that the municipalities have a guarantee of some form. We can all remember the Edmonton commitment which the previous Treasurer, Mr. McKeough, made. That went by the wayside after about thee years.

Those are just some of the concerns I have, and I am sure the minister shares them to some extent. I do not know that anyone has the answer to them, but we should be coming to an answer soon, because we have been left with a hotchpotch of grants. It is time somebody got down to doing some serious thinking on these and came up with a basic situation in grants so that the municipalities would be aware each year of their costs and the school board too.

Ms. Isaacs: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is aware that I felt earlier there was a chance we would not be here today, but the quality of the comments that have been made by some of the previous speakers makes me very glad we are. I have five or six items remaining on this vote which I would like to raise with the minister. The fact that we are here today gives me the freedom to feel I can take a little longer on each one.

I want to thank the minister for already commenting on the matter of municipal licensing and for indicating to us what I interpret to be something of a reversal of his predecessor’s policy in that at least municipalities will be able to recover all the costs that are associated with the operation and the issuing of the licence. If I understand the minister’s comments correctly, that is much closer to what the municipalities have been asking for than was the proposal introduced by his predecessor.

I find it interesting that we are talking here today about a licensing provision that was originally recommended something like two years ago, and yet we still have no bill before us. Things seem to move remarkably slowly around here.

The matter of regional government was raised by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and he made some very reasonable suggestions, particularly relating to the region of Niagara.

I referred to regional government, in some sense, in my opening remarks and I now want to make a few more remarks about Hamilton-Wentworth. I have found the minister’s almost stubborn refusal to deal with the problem that Hamilton-Wentworth is facing to be incredibly frustrating.

I am surprised, as an aside, that in mentioning the situation in Winnipeg, the minister had not expanded a little more on the problems that have existed since the unitary system was introduced there. I am sure the minister’s staff are aware of those, and I would have thought the minister would have seen it appropriate to remind us of those, in view of the present circumstances.

I want to suggest to the minister that the Winnipeg situation was an experiment. It was a very far-reaching experiment in unitary government and it was one that was almost inevitably bound to create some problems. There have been problems but the situation can be resolved and I am sure that the people of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba are going to work it out. I believe we can learn from the Winnipeg experience.

I am concerned that the minister appears to believe that by sitting back and saying things are okay, the situation in Hamilton-Wentworth is going to resolve itself. That is surely the farthest from the truth.

We have one suburban mayor who has ad- miffed on numerous occasions -- in fact, very strongly and as recently as last week -- that she is prepared to play the role of a Joan of Arc and lead her municipality out of regional government. We have another suburban councillor who states very clearly, and I think fairly responsibly, that in his view the regional government system we have now is the lesser of the evils that could exist. But while he is saying that, he is losing the battles, slowly, one by one.

We are seeing cost transfers come about. We are seeing situations arise that, little by little, are gnawing away at the fabric of the structure of the region that exists right now. We have a situation where suburban and rural taxpayers are paying more than they should be, more than they need to be, and more than they would be if there were a restructuring undertaken in Hamilton-Wentworth.

At regional council meetings, we see language being used that, in my mind, is completely inappropriate for any elected body. We see regional councillors calling each other liars. We have cases of regional councillors accusing each other of deliberately providing misleading information to regional council and to the public. We cannot go on in that kind of situation. It is impossible that regional government will work when the situation is so tense, so fraught with personality conflict that is brought on by conflict between the various powers within that region.

Unfortunately, I have to look forward to the municipal elections in November; I have to realize that in several of the suburban municipalities, there will be regional councillors elected who are determined to cause the breakup of the region. In the city, we will have a majority of city councillors elected who are determined to fight for a unitary system in that region.

4:30 p.m.

As a result of those municipal elections, and as a result of the fact that those people will go to regional council meetings believing they have a mandate to put forward and fighting for their point of view, we are going to have a worse situation come December and January than we have flow.

I know these views will be successful in the elections, not because I have any way of predicting the outcome of municipal elections but simply because the information is not being put on the table. The facts are not available to members of the public; sometimes they are not available to regional councillors themselves. The power struggles that are going on now are not going to get better.

Sitting back and saying that the two-tier system was what we thought was best in 1972 and is what we still think is best is not going to solve anything. We have to have some action on the part of the government. We have to have an indication of a direction. If not, the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are going to face a regional government in 1981 that serves them even less well than they are served by the regional government they have now.

The regional government they have now does serve them well in some areas. There is no doubt about that; there have been some great achievements and some great strides forward. But in terms of day-to-day business, in terms of the attitudes being conveyed to taxpayers within Hamilton-Wentworth, we have a desperately serious problem.

I want once more to ask the minister whether he is prepared to do anything to help cut down the tension in Hamilton-Wentworth and to help ensure that the local government system, whatever it be, becomes much more a system that serves the people and ensures that taxpayers are being treated in a fair manner rather than in an unfair manner. We cannot go through the next municipal election with what we have. That municipal election is not going to solve anything.

I would appreciate the minister’s response, and then I will deal with my other four concerns.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the Hamilton-Wentworth situation. It has been mentioned by many of the speakers. My friend from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is the only one who in his opening remarks did not refer to Hamilton-Wentworth.

I think my friend from Wentworth will agree that there were problems facing the whole region in the 1970s, when this system was brought in. The former village of Waterdown, for example, he may recall, had an equalized assessment of only $4,000 and could not afford to replace its water storage facilities, which were beyond repair.

The jurisdictional separation of the city of Hamilton from Wentworth county made regional planning almost an impossibility. There was a joint planning board, but it was never able to develop an official plan because of the requirements for unanimous approval by the member municipalities. This greatly restricted the availability of serviced industrial land in the whole region.

The population of Cootes Paradise, on Burlington Bay, as increasing, and only one out of 10 garbage disposal sites in the area met the Ministry of the Environment’s standards. Dundas and Stoney Creek bought their water from the city of Hamilton. Thus, they had no say in the planning of the overall system, while the city sometimes had unexpected demands put upon it for its water servicing. There was a lack of co-ordination in the delivery of social services because of the existence of two separate administrations, one for the city and one for the county.

I give the members a bit of that history because they have to remember there was a problem there, and that is why people were looking for a solution. When you think of the problem there back in the early 1970s, against that background, the accomplishments of regional government have been quite dramatic.

One of the things we tend to do is to dwell upon some of the problems which, I suggest, are created more by people than by the system. The member can dispute that, and I am sure there are people who will, but I think the regional council can work and the regional two-tier system can work. It can work if the people in the area, realizing the gains it has made and the advantages it has brought to the area, try to make the system work rather than wondering how they can break it down to get one big, unitary city of Hamilton. Rather than doing that, I think we can make the system work there, and make it work to the betterment of the whole region.

Think of some of the things that have happened since the regional government came in as opposed to what was there before the 1970s. Regional councils adapted and submitted to the Minister of Housing an official plan to guide development over the region for the next 20 years. The integration of water and sewer services has made possible significant improvements in the outlying communities, including a new water tower for Waterdown. The equalization of water and sewer rates has facilitated a more orderly planning process throughout the region, and reduced the per household financial burden on residents of Ancaster and other communities.

By this fall, Hamilton-Wentworth will be operating what I am told will be the most advanced solid waste disposal system in Canada. If it is, that will be a real achievement for the regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth.

Other achievements include bringing on stream the Stoney Creek and East Mountain industrial parks, the takeover of rural policing from the province, the establishment of a single housing authority, the east-west north-south freeway and the maintenance of transit services to the suburbs. These are the kinds of things that have happened in the area, and in view of them I just cannot agree with statements that --

Mr. Mackenzie: We made no advances.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suggest that there has to be some advantage to the area. I cannot agree with statements that are made to me that the present two-tier system of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth is not working and will not work. It has worked.

Of course, any two-tier system has both strengths and weaknesses. Some of the weaknesses would perhaps be eliminated by a j. - one-tier system like that recommended by the Stewart commission. However, one of the main strengths of the two-tier system is the provision of the safeguards for local and community identity. If the member is not interested in safeguards for local and community identity, then the one-tier system w