Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. House leader.

Hon. F. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like today to introduce to the Legislature seven guests from the government of the Northwest Territories. They are Eskimo interpreter-translator trainees under the direction of Mr. Lloyd Dahl, who is leading the group. They are sitting in the Speaker’s gallery and they are visiting the Legislature today as part of a planned programme in governmental affairs which will take them to various provincial, federal and territorial organizations. I would ask you to join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ATHABASCA TAR SANDS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet if he can report to the House the intention of the very important delegation from Ontario meeting in Winnipeg today with the Syncrude organization. There was some expectation that an announcement would be made of Ontario’s involvement. Is there any information the minister can add to the present knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Not at this particular time, Mr. Speaker, but they will report to the House on their return.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. It’s a perennial one. Has he any information further to his last statement on the state of the application by CPR to dump several hundred tons of Toronto garbage in Hope township? This is a matter that has been in abeyance now for about two years.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, ever since I announced the comprehensive resource recovery programme for the Province of Ontario, we have had a look at this in light of that and we are now in the final stages of preparation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Final stages?

Hon. W. Newman: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since this matter has been pending since well before the hon. minister took up his present duties, what kind of a time span is referred to as final stages? Can we expect an announcement before this session is adjourned?

Hon. W. Newman: I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, it is that kind of final stage.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: To the Minister of Housing: How did he make out with the government of Canada in his co-operative efforts with the other housing ministers across Canada to improve the housing budget from the federal source, and was he in any way successful in getting a freer hand in spending those federal dollars that come to this province?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was sure the minister would be.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Here we go! Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We had a very historic meeting --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Historic?

Mr. Lewis: Historic?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- with the ministers responsible from all the provinces across Canada, and we agreed on certain principles for housing, not only for Ontario but for all of Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Historic meeting -- certain principles --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The leader of the NDP might listen to this because I think he’s interested in housing. I would like to have it on record even if he isn’t.

Mr. Lewis: So far we have had “historic meeting,” “certain principles” and “Canada.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If he isn’t interested, I would like to have it on record.

Mr. Lewis: I am listening.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right. We agreed, Mr. Speaker, on some very basic principles necessary for housing in Ontario and in every other province of Canada. The next day we went to a meeting with the federal minister, the Hon. Barney Danson, and his officials. We discussed each province’s concerns and problems. In the afternoon, we discussed at great length the proposed or approved budget of the federal government, about which we had word before we went there, hoping that it might be changed.

The budget of the federal government for the fiscal year 1974-1975 is $1.2 billion. The proposed budget for 1975-1976 is $1.4 billion --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Is that all?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- with estimated starts of approximately 200,000, which in our opinion is much too low in numbers. The budget is also much too low. It shows that the federal government has not put a priority on housing throughout Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And this government has?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as the Province of Ontario is concerned, we took a very tough stand with the hon. minister, saying to him that he had to have a change by his colleagues in the cabinet in order to recognize that housing is a need for all the people of Canada and particularly Ontario.

What the federal government has done by way of this proposed or approved budget -- and we can’t tell if it’s approved until Mr. Turner actually comes out and says it is the budget -- is that it has placed a higher priority on what CMHC does throughout Canada, and in particular in Ontario, by having 60 per cent of the budget underneath CMHC and by duplication of programmes, resulting in unnecessary expense.

In our opinion, the provinces should be implementing the programmes, and the federal government should be providing the financing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a nice way to do it.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Ah ha!

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): That’s the way to do it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have never been able to get the federal government to say that they would give us a three-year forward commitment, that they would give us block funding, that they would have pre-consultation before the housing programmes are announced. The Leader of the Opposition could help in his small way by telling his colleagues in Ottawa that they are so far off base in their proposed programmes for 1975-1976 that they are a disgrace, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Right on!

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The minister will get a lot of co-operation after that statement!

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if I might be helpful in my small way --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Is that the new federalism?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How did the minister explain to his colleagues across Canada that since he became the Minister of Housing, the start rate in this province has dropped from about 100,000 to a projection of about 85,000 for this year, which by the way is down from 110,000 in the time of his predecessor? Does he not accept some responsibility, since the province has given it a priority by appointing a minister for this specific area?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, one of the first subjects we discussed was why we have these wide swings in housing -- not only in Ontario, but in British Columbia, in the United States and in Great Britain. We have had a very serious drop in housing starts all over the world.

Mr. Breithaupt: Ontario leads the way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Down to 85,000 starts!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we have to recognize is that while the provincial government certainly has a very real responsibility to produce starts, we also share that responsibility with the federal government, with municipal governments and with the people in each community who have said to ns: “We don’t want any further starts in our community. Put them in somebody else’s community.”

I am saying that it’s time all levels of government got down to the basic fact that we have a shared responsibility. It isn’t enough to just put up money. We have got to have community acceptance of all our programmes for housing. We have had, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, a wide difference between 1973-1974 and now. We’re talking about the calendar year and this is one thing I think we must separate. The calendar year is somewhat different from the fiscal year of the Ontario government. In the calendar year we had 85,000 starts.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It’ll be worse in the fiscal year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it really that low?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, the Leader of the Opposition saw the statistics. He already quoted them. What I want to say is that under Ontario Housing ‘74, which was misinterpreted by the news media --

Mr. Singer: Oh, that’s what it was.

Mr. Lewis: Misinterpreted by the news media?

Mr. Singer: Nobody understands the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- on the basis that the programmes in Housing ‘74 are for the fiscal year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The public relations people were working on it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the NDP gets through his conversation, I’ll start again.

Mr. Lewis: Like everything else, the minister’s in cahoots with the Globe and Mail on housing. He has a cozy relationship.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. minister complete his answer?

Mr. Singer: Let’s not misinterpret it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, what we have to ensure is this, that Ontario Housing ‘74 set out certain programmes all related to the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975.

Mr. Lewis: We know the fiscal calendar business.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All members have to do is read the article and they will see it. I can quote them page and chapter and verse if they want me to.

Mr. Renwick: The minister has taken up too much of the time of the question period already.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, the subject is this, that we are disturbed that we haven’t maintained 110,000 starts. That’s quite true.

Mr. Singer: How many has the government maintained?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s time for the municipal governments and for the federal government to do the same thing -- to get with us.

Mr. Singer: The federal government, the municipal government -- where is this government’s responsibility?

Mr. Cassidy: Everybody is out of step but the minister; is that right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the Leader of the Opposition had better recognize this, that the Province of Ontario has been the leading province, not only in Canada but in North America in regard to housing starts.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Too much bureaucracy.

Mr. Lewis: I have to say something now.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The member doesn’t have to.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I am compelled to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister, apart from the conspiracy of the federal and municipal governments to prevent him from building houses, how does he manage to reconcile his present levels of 100,000 a year for 10 years, when he knows on the basis of his own statistics that just to keep pace with the formation of new families, the replacement factors and the shift from rental to purchase accommodation, requires a minimum of 128,000 units a year in the Province of Ontario for the next two years? Therefore, why does he posit a shortfall of 250,000 before he even starts?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the very simple answer to that is that this problem of inflation has not been related to housing starts by the federal government, as it should have been many months ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that’s it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The federal government failed to recognize that inflation would stop housing in Ontario and throughout Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Surely the minister can’t blame them for this situation? Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever. The inflationary factor has been one of the main reasons for the lack of housing.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have a lack of mortgage funds. We have a lack of funds at a reasonable rate of interest.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Too much bureaucracy. How about that one? Delay in approval.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have to make sure that the rate of interest is much less than 11.5 per cent. Would the leader of the NDP not say that the rate should be lower than that?

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the government lower the tax base?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’re working on a programme which has met with a very good response from builders. It was just finalized as of the end of January.

Mrs. Campbell: It sure has.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We sent out on a limited dividend programme. We sent out 80 proposals and half of those have been responded to by developers, which I expect will be very acceptable in the majority of cases by this government. Therefore, we will have stabilization of rents on a limited dividend proposal for building in Ontario, with a programme which is supplementary to what the federal government has. All I’m saying is there is no need for duplication of programmes in Ontario. The Province of Ontario should be the one responsible for the implementation of programmes. There is no need for the federal government to come in with the same programme.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Downsview still have a supplementary?

Mr. Singer: Yes. As carefully as I listened to the minister, I still misunderstand him. I don’t know what he said. Could he tell me the extent to which he has fallen below his target for housing starts in Ontario, even going to the end of fiscal year March 31, 1975? How much lower is he than he predicted he would be a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member said fiscal year 1975. Is that right?

Mr. Singer: That was before the minister was complaining about other people taking a long time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For 1974-1975.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I haven’t by any means said that we are going to be below our target at the end of the fiscal year 1975.

Mr. Lewis: That’s marvellous!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is going to be down 10,000.

Mr. Cassidy: How far below at the end of this March?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to the member that there is a difference between the calendar year and the fiscal year. When the fiscal year is up then we will know what the starts have been and how much we will be below.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Singer: The minister is behind right now. How far behind is he now at the beginning of February?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that depends whether you are in the opposition or over here.

Mr. Singer: Oh, no. No matter where you sit, here or there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Right now we think we are ahead of the game.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Always ahead.

Mr. Singer: No wonder no one can understand him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We still have time to achieve the target that we set out in Ontario Housing ‘74, and we are going to do it if I can do it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister go out and turn some sod himself?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A final supplementary; the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: In order to speed up housing starts, has the minister considered rescinding the speculative land tax on new construction?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear the question.

Mr. Shulman: How about cancelling the speculative land tax to get things going again?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think that the land speculation tax was one of the best things we ever did in regard to having housing starts. We at least were able to control the price of housing in regard to the cost of land, which is a basic component of the overall cost for housing. So therefore I am for the land speculation tax still staying on and I hope it will.

Mr. Speaker: Has the Leader of the Opposition further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West?

HIGHWAYS 17 AND 417

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, why is it taking so long to erect the signs on Highways 17 and 417 at the request of the many business establishments and citizens now that the ministry has put in the bypass?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware that there was a delay, and if there is I shall see if we can speed it up.

I have made a commitment to those people that the signs would be put up. If they are being delayed I wasn’t aware of it and I will look into that matter immediately.

Mr. Lewis: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: Why do we have to keep on pressing and pressing and pressing to get it done?

Mr. Lewis: The signs are nowhere to be found, and no date has been given to the people.

May I also ask then, in a similar vein, what plans are proceeding within the ministry for any of the road and roadside improvements which have been requested to allow for the continuing viability of all of the establishments in communities along Highway 17 as a relative tourist route for those who choose to travel it -- the passing lanes, the widening of certain lanes, and some of the tourist possibilities from the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett)?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot answer for the Minister of Industry and Tourism as to what his ministry will be doing.

We have had people going into the area meeting with the residents and the business people along that portion of the highway, and I have stated to them -- and I am sincere in that -- that we will do what we can to assist them within the confines of my own ministry.

We have, as well, indicated to them that we will not be leasing sites along the new highway for service centres, that we would discuss these matters with the businessmen who are now on old Highway 17 in an effort to give them an opportunity to become viable before any competition such as this would be developed.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister report to us in the House on this so that everybody there knows what is happening since there are such time lags between what the minister believes to be happening and what actually occurs?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly shall.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Other than the use of international signs, does the minister intend that the signing in this area be done both in English and French so that there is as great an encouragement as possible, for people travelling between Montreal and Ottawa particularly, to take advantage of the scenic and other enjoyable areas along the old highway?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the people of that area that we will be using international signs as much as possible. Where the international signs are not applicable we will put up bilingual signs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West; further questions?

DOCTORS’ FEE SCHEDULE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. What position is the cabinet taking on the announcement by the doctors that they may well opt out of the OHIP programme for the purpose of extracting an increase in income?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, though you to the leader of the NDP Party --

Mr. Lewis: Just NDP -- I am very sensitive about that.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I noticed that.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to get sympatico.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will endeavour not to repeat the transgression. The 1975 schedule has been fixed by the joint committee.

Mr. Lewis: The what? I am sorry.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The 1975 schedule has been fixed by the joint committee, and it’s certainly the government’s position and hope that the OMA will continue to honour that agreement.

Mr. Lewis: I see. By way of a supplementary: Since the doctors have publicly repudiated that agreement -- which, if I recall, is four per cent on May 1, 1975 -- and if they opt out of OHIP, it won’t be a 13 per cent increase, it will be more like a 25 per cent or 30 per cent increase in costs to the public treasury and in billing procedures, surely, there’s some government statement of policy about what we should expect. The doctors are, after all, voting today.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that’s a hypothetical question. I think in view of the fact the doctors are meeting and that no decision has been reached, we will await their decision before making any judgment.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

SARNIA GENERAL HOSPITAL CARETAKING CONTRACT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question, if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour aware -- I’m working from memory here -- that the Sarnia General Hospital has just contracted out to a private firm the work of 47 employees in the caretaking area of the hospital? The 47 employees were not consulted in advance. They were presented with a fait accompli and offered the option to join the new firm without the equivalent benefits they received as employees of the hospital. Is he aware of that and is he prepared to look into this trend within the hospital administration?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it but I am prepared to look into it.

WATTS & FANTASIA HOLDINGS LTD.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I have another question of the Minister of Labour. Can he tell us something about Watts & Fantasia Holdings Ltd., a firm which was engaged in strike-breaking activities in the Rexall strike in the Metropolitan Toronto area recently? Can he indicate to us what the nature of those strike-breaking activities were and whether they have his approval?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I was aware that there was some friction or disturbance on that picket line. We were concerned about it. I am happy to report that the Rexall matter was settled over the weekend, as the member is probably aware. They are back to work today; but I’m not aware of any strike-breaking activities of any illegal nature. If the member has any information, I will be pleased to follow it up in any way we can.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary: Since strike-breaking isn’t illegal in Ontario, alas, there are no such activities; but since the minister’s predecessors have condemned the behaviour, can he look into the activities of Watts & Fantasia Holdings Ltd., as they involve themselves in strikes, and indicate to the Legislature of what those activities consist and whether or not they have the minister’s approval -- legislative, moral or otherwise?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look into it. When the member said the strike-breaking is not illegal, I thought he had reference to some illegal action on the picket line by either party.

Mr. Lewis: No, I cannot make those assumptions.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suppose the official position of the ministry is: If it’s lawful, that’s all we’re involved in. But I’ll certainly make some inquires in regard to this and report back to the House.

Mr. Lewis: If it is lawful, it is acceptable! I have no further questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

WEDNESDAY SITTINGS

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I’d like to ask if we could know who is the acting Premier today in the House?

Mr. Speaker: You may direct a question to any one of the ministers.

Mr. P. Taylor: Is there no senior acting minister today?

Mr. Lewis: The minister without portfolio will act. The member for London South (Mr. White) will always act.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Why doesn’t the member ask his question?

Mr. Lewis: At $7,500 more he will act forever.

An hon. member: Ask the House leader.

Mr. P. Taylor: Perhaps I could then ask the government House leader. I would like to know, from the government House leader, why this House is not sitting on Wednesday and why hasn’t it sat on Wednesdays in regular practice?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Because of normal routine.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. House leader say that the House has not been sitting on Wednesdays because the cabinet sits Wednesday afternoons?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That could be part of the reasoning; but we call it that way, and it has been working very satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. Taylor: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. House leader say whether or not he has taken into consideration the inconvenience caused to out-of-town members by not sitting in the House on Wednesdays?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There will be committees sitting on Wednesdays. I don’t consider that an inconvenience if members are looking after their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Lewis: The House leader handled that all right. That’s the first time in a long time.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the continued desperation of certain segments of the dump truck industry of this area, as evidenced by their continued presence outside the building, even today, has the minister any encouraging words to offer them and the House as to progress in connection with solution of their problems?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, for the third time in response to this question I have indicated to the hon. member and other members of this House that I want to have the inquiry. I’ve told them that I would have an inquiry as was requested by the members of the various associations of haulers in the province. The demonstration that has gone on here has been conducted by the local association here in Toronto. I have met with representatives from other parts of the province; they are quite satisfied that there will be an inquiry. There is one other request they have made of me and that is for a moratorium on the issuance of any further licences in this class.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A good idea.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Frankly, I am looking to see if I personally as the minister have the authority to do that. If I do, then I will give it very serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister tell this House how many of the task force members who investigated workmen’s compensation have been hired by that board since September, 1978, at what salary, and specifically, what has P.S. Ross been paid on a per-diem basis since that time?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I know that Mr. Starr has been hired. I know that my deputy was deputy prior to the task force, and is still deputy of the ministry. I’m not sure that I can even tell you the other members, but we can certainly get that information, and answer the other points that the hon. member asked.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South.

STATUS OF EMPLOYEES’ GRATUITIES

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I have a question of the Minister of Labour. This seems to be his day.

With regard to his public statements in reference to certain hotels which pay wages to their employees out of the gratuity fund which the employees gather for themselves, how does the minister reconcile his public statements that this is a practice that he doesn’t necessarily approve of but he can’t do anything about, with the fact there was a court judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Fraser in a case some two or three years ago in Ottawa, stating that gratuities are a trust fund and are not to be used for wages?

Mr. Renwick: The minister ought to outlaw it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard of the case the member refers to. I haven’t read it, but I understand it can be differentiated from the regular gratuities where if employees agree to pool their tips in any way, that is a legitimate part of the contract. I say I don’t like it, Mr. Speaker. I frown upon it because I think the public expects the tips to go at least to the persons who served them, or persons who were very closely connected with that service. So I don’t like the practice. But the law is that we ignore gratuities completely.

The service industries would like us to recognize them in the minimum wage, and say that the minimum wage for people who get gratuities should be somewhat less than the standard minimum wage. We’ve resisted that presentation, and the matter of gratuities is such an uncertain matter that I think we will continue to ignore it. But I think the case that the member made reference to can be differentiated. I’ll ask our legal advisers to review it again, sir.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question: Would the minister not consider amending the Labour Relations Act, or any other Act that is more appropriate to specify that gratuities which either are added to the bill or are voluntarily granted and kept by management, shall be treated as trust, and not used as the pool out of which they pay wages, so that the minister will protect everybody involved?

Mr. Lewis: Right. In other words, outlaw the practice.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think it has long been recognized as a practice that many gratuities are pooled in some way or another -- even to the busboys, and it goes beyond busboys and people of that nature.

Mr. MacDonald: I am not objecting to the pooling; I am objecting to their being robbed by management.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I say that once you get into it there is no limitation on the matter at all, because you don’t know what the gratuities amount to.

Mr. Lewis: The minister should just change the Act.

Mr. MacDonald: They can pay the minimum wage and the gratuities on top, as it was intended to be.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we really want to get into it, but I’ll review the matter again. We have had many discussions on it but I think we --

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t want to get into it? It is outright theft, for God’s sake.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No it’s not, if they agreed to it in advance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is, sure it is. It is moral theft then. That wasn’t the intention of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m inclined to agree that it’s a moral misrepresentation, or an immoral misrepresentation --

Mr. Cassidy: Well then, do something about it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to this House that once we start having legislation dealing with gratuities, the employee may be the one who suffers the most from it, because then we have to view it in regard to the minimum wage and other things as well.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But I’ve simply been asked to re-examine it and, Mr. Speaker, I will.

Mr. Lewis: His present legislation is gratuitous anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

SOBERMAN REPORT

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications, having regard for the anticipation with which the Soberman report was awaited, does the minister intend to permit this report to languish in limbo like the Buckminster Fuller report, or does he intend to take concrete action with respect to the implementation of some of its recommendations? Indeed, what concrete action, if any, does he intend to take with respect to some of these recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the report was prepared by Mr. Soberman for the Metro planning committee. The report has been submitted to that committee. It is now, as far as I am concerned, entirely up to Metro council to make a study of that report and make its recommendations.

As I indicated earlier, there are recommendations within that particular report that I think make some sense. I do feel that it is entirely in the hands of Metro council, for whom the report was prepared, to determine what action it wishes to take as a result of that report. I don’t want to pretend for one minute to be the Metro chairman. It’s entirely up to him and his council to make those decisions.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Isn’t it a fact that the government on this issue has petrified Metro with fear? In view of this government’s transportation policies of the past 3½ years, doesn’t the minister at least owe it to the Metro officials to call them on the telephone, ask them to come here to a meeting and indicate to them what encouragement, if any, he is prepared to give them on the promise of the 75 per cent assistance that he said be would give them with regard to some of these recommendations, so that they can feel that they can go ahead without any fear of this government aborting any of their plans, the way it did 3½ years ago? Doesn’t the minister think he owes it to them to do this for them?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that I am prepared to discuss the matters with metropolitan councils and the Metro council itself. However, I am now going to await, as I have indicated, a reply from the Metro council once it has had an opportunity to study it. I have been criticized by local politicians in the past for having gone ahead and for making some announcements --

Mr. Lewis: He already did. He did.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- before they have done so. I have only indicated that I was prepared to recommend some of the recommendations to my colleagues, provided those recommendations were endorsed by Metro council. When that happens I’ll stand by what I’ve said.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Is the minister waiting for them to call him or has he called them? This is very important.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have not called anyone. I am waiting for a response from them. I understand from reading the press over the last few days that --

Mr. Givens: A response to what?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto is going to be meeting with the members of his council and they are going to discuss the contents of the report. I’m not going to get backed into the corner of deciding what’s good and what’s bad in that report until such time as Metropolitan Toronto council --

Mr. Lewis: He already has. He has already done it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- which is always talking about it -- makes its report to me.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since the minister has already done that, ill-advisedly, in advance -- and, incidentally, misinterpreted Mr. Soberman’s recommendations, as he indicated in a letter in the Globe on Saturday -- doesn’t he think he has to make some public penance, some public explanation, and indicate exactly what he meant, in advance of the Metro council meeting, so that they have some assurance of what they are talking about?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if I have misinterpreted Mr. Soberman’s report, then it’s quite possible that I’m not alone in this category, because I was being urged by the news media in this city and by members of the Metro council to react to some of the recommendations made by Mr. Soberman.

Mr. Lewis: Then just say no.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I had an opportunity to see that report the night it was released. I read it that evening and I dealt with the very things that the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto sent to me, which had a big circle around it -- “Look at the northwest” -- and I did.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister always respond to what Paul Godfrey circles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would certainly think I would have the courtesy of reading what he indicated was of interest to him and to Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is going around in circles.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I looked at those and I responded to two thing -- two things only. I’m afraid I didn’t have an opportunity to read that total report and I appreciate having the letter that was sent to me and to the news media explaining it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will he be filing an intervention before the Canadian Transport Commission into the application by All Trans Express Ltd. and Kwikasair Ltd. for a licence to truck on Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we shall. I quite frankly don’t hold much hope of being very successful considering what has happened in the last intervention. But we certainly will intervene on the same grounds. I wish to point out to the hon. member that the grounds on which we had to intervene the last time were that we were concerned about the volume of traffic and the safety on our highways. We were advised by the CTC at that time that those two matters did not have any concern to them. We appealed that decision and lost in the courts. Now we will intervene again but, frankly, I don’t hold much hope of being successful under the present terms.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given that the minister has already admitted defeat before the CTC, and given that he has promised this House the government of Ontario will take action to prevent this from happening, when can we expect some legislation in this House to accomplish what he has said is required in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to admit defeat. I was defeated, and it is quite easy to see that. I told the member at the time when he first asked the question that we were in the process --

Mr. Lewis: Just a dry run.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He’s getting into the habit anyway of getting defeated.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I missed that.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): It wasn’t worth hearing.

Mr. MacDonald: It wasn’t worth hearing.

Mr. Speaker: It’s an improper interjection. Will the minister carry on?

Mr. Reid: He’s getting into the habit of getting defeated.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am on an equal basis with the hon. member for Rainy River. Neither one of us has tasted it as yet.

In response to the question, I said at the time that we are preparing regulations in legislation that we felt could handle this situation. Frankly, it is not an easy one because we are faced with the fact that the Lord’s Day Act still is an Act that is in effect in Canada and in effect in Ontario. We are trying to find, in working with the Attorney General’s office, adequate legislation that will handle our problem, and we are working on that very diligently. I will report back as soon as I can in response to that particular problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

PLEASURE CRAFT HOLDING TANKS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the change of policy of the US Environmental Protection Agency concerning holding tanks and its effect on the Great Lakes waterways? Will the minister strongly object to both the federal authorities in Canada and in the United States and support Gov. Milliken of the United States concerning holding tanks, so that the minister’s policy of holding tanks remains in effect, and so that the government of the US withdraws its policy concerning not requiring holding tanks on pleasure craft?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am not just sure of the question. Is the member talking about the large vessels on the lakes or is he talking about pleasure craft?

Mr. B. Newman: Pleasure craft in the US, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency, do not require the use of holding tanks. Now all the operator has to do is simply have the waste chopped up, chlorinated and dumped right into the open waters.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have no plans to change our particular policy at this time. As far as holding tanks of pleasure craft are concerned, we intend to stay with the regulations we have. I’d like to have a chance to look at the EPA recommendation.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister join with Gov. Milliken of the State of Michigan and strongly object to the new US policy, hoping to have it changed?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows we have already had meetings with Madame Sauve regarding vessel waste discharges from the ocean-going boats. We have made strong representation there on many occasions, and we expect federal regulations very soon on this particular matter. I think they are close to agreement on US-Canadian waters, but certainly I will take it up with the federal people here and talk it over and work something out on the matter. I am not exactly sure what they recommend, but we feel that our regulations are right and I would like to see the Great Lakes well protected. If they are not well protected, certainly I am very much concerned about the way waste is treated on foreign pleasure craft.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

COMBUSTIBLE PLASTIC FOAM

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the increasing use of household furnishing products containing foamed plastics. Is the minister aware that among the causes of death resulting from residential fires there is an increasing prominence of combustible plastics or plastic foams which emit toxic fumes when they are burning and while they are smouldering? If so has he initiated any discussions on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite frank with the hon. member. No, I wasn’t aware of the fact that furniture upholsterers were using it. I thought they would be using polyurethane foam, which to my understanding does not give off toxic fumes. However, I would be pleased to look into it. If the hon. member would like to give me some specifics, I would be prepared to give it closer examination.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Would the minister take steps to look into the probability that the labels on these plastics are not telling the whole truth about their flammability?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I will check and see if we have jurisdiction to do that, and if we do I would certainly try to ensure there is truth in labelling. I understand labelling is primarily a federal responsibility, but I would be quite prepared to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

VIOLENCE IN SPORTS

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General and the policy secretary for justice et al: Has the minister been following the court case involving the Boston Bruin hockey player who assaulted a Minnesota North Star player and who has been charged in the state of Michigan with assault? Does he intend to instruct the law officers of the Crown or the people in his ministry to take similar action in the Province of Ontario if there is local assault taking place in the game of hockey, both at the professional and amateur levels?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have watched with some interest and listened to some newscasts pertaining to the first matter to which the member refers. I haven’t come to any conclusion that I should instruct the law officers of the Crown to take any different position with reference to any sport. I think it’s a decision that has to be made under the circumstances of each individual case. It’s a difficult thing for a law officer at a sports event to decide when the natural enthusiasm of participants terminates and wilful damage is inflicted on someone who is participating in that game.

I think the law officers of the Crown and law enforcement agencies are always under the obligation that if they see anything that gives rise to a wilful attack or assault on any participant or spectator, then they must lay a charge. But to direct all those efforts to one particular sport and leave it at that, would be very difficult. There is an implied consent that there is a certain amount of body contact; I think the very difficult thing is to determine the wilfulness of the attack, that’s a matter that would have to be decided by the court.

No, I have not directed them to take a look at the game of hockey with any degree of particularity other than to maintain the type of vigilance they have in the past.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Does that mean the minister has the whole matter under consideration in his ministry, not just hockey but all contact sports?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes; I think the members of the House can appreciate the difficulty that a law enforcement agency has, but I think they must continue to be vigilant, particularly when there have been some very serious personal injuries suffered in the professional sports field in the not-too-distant past.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Is his ministry at present negotiating with any companies with a view to their locating in Spencerville? If so, how many companies, and what is the nature of the companies?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question very simply by saying yes, we are negotiating and have been speaking with some companies.

Mr. Samis: Could I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? What priority is the ministry putting on attracting industry in Spencerville, vis-à-vis the other communities in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Singer: He thinks it is a dumb idea.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly last week when we made the announcement regarding the 10,000-acre industrial park that we are developing in the Spencerville area that the type of industry we would be trying to lure into that part of the province and that park was entirely different than what one would try to take into a municipal industrial park. There is no relationship. Their size and the volume of business --

Mr. Samis: I am not asking that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, their size and volume of business is not to be compared. And what we will do with this industrial park in no way will detract from the type of industries that will be available for the municipal industrial parks.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The time is just about up. There are several people who want to ask new questions. The member for Kitchener.

PROPOSED COTTAGE SUBDIVISION ON NAPPAN ISLAND

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: In light of the fact that the united townships of Seymour, Percy, Rawdon and Alnwick, the town of Campbellford and the Lower Trent River Conservation Authority have all passed a resolution stating that development on Nappan Island is not compatible with good interests of land management and environment control, can the minister now tell the House anything about a subdivision plan for construction of an additional 150 cottages, beside the 250 that had already been considered, and whether this plan will now be stopped since the local townships have unanimously opposed it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the question of land use on Nappan Island is presently before the OMB. There hasn’t been a decision reached as yet. The question of the subdivision, whether it will go ahead or not, has not been brought to our ministry, as far as I know, and it certainly would have to be circulated, as is every other subdivision plan.

I am aware of the problems to which the hon. member is referring and I would expect that it will be some while before any approval would be given to any proposed subdivision, but to my knowledge there’s no plan of a subdivision before us at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

ASBESTOS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware, and can he explain, why it is that independent research conducted by Lakehead University -- as it was published in the local papers in Thunder Bay over the weekend -- into asbestos fibres in Port Arthur’s drinking water supply from Thunder Bay harbour, show fibre counts 10 to 100 times greater than the figures released by his ministry; and that one sample taken was higher than the levels shown in Duluth over the past summer?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of this particular sampling at the university, but may I tell the member that in dealing with testing asbestos in water, one must be very careful. One must almost be dealing in a vacuum situation, or they can also get asbestos fibres into water.

The testing we have done and that has been done is done with an electron microscope. There are only so many electron microscopes in the Province of Ontario; and we can only schedule so many tests. They are going seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We expect our own electron microscope will be in operation within the next four to five months and we’ll be able to do a lot more testing on our own.

If there has been some testing done, we’d be glad to see the results and have a look at it, but certainly our tests are done under ideal conditions. I’m not saying theirs weren’t, but certainly our lab testing would indicate that any levels we set out at this point in time are accurate.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, if I might Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a short one requiring a short answer?

Mr. Foulds: As short as possible. Is the minister aware that the Lakehead University research was conducted with an electron microscope, as he suggested? Why is that the ministry figures as a whole are lower than those figures released by the International Joint Commission? Is the ministry doing different kinds of studies?

Hon. W. Newman: No, Mr. Speaker, we’re not doing different kinds of studies. We’re constantly doing testing and experimental work at all times in our lab. I would invite the member and any other members of his caucus to visit our labs and see exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, if I may. I’m speaking in reference to an answer given by the Minister of Housing earlier in the question period. It emerges that the annual start rate in Ontario for the fiscal year 1974-1975 will be 83,000 units, which is 17,000 below his target; just to keep the whole debate in perspective.

Mr. Singer: It depends where one is sitting.

Mr. Lewis: It doesn’t depend on that when one has the figures.

Mr. Speaker: It is not really a point of order; but thanks for the correction.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What was the point of order?

Mr. Lewis: The point of order was the minister was wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why?

Mr. Lewis: No matter how he calculates it, he was wrong again.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

The hon. member for Perth.

RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT BUSINESS HOURS ACT

Mr. Edighoffer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Controlling of Hours in Retail Establishments.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for uniform holidays and business hours for retail establishments throughout the province.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wonder if I might put a request to you, sir, since you have the responsibility for all matters pertaining to the House. I wonder if you would instruct Hansard that it would be the desire of the House that they record proceedings before the resources development committee dealing with the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

The Workmen’s Compensation Board discussion that is going to take place, starting this afternoon, is in effect an extension of the discussion which ought to have taken place during the estimates and which normally would have been recorded had it taken place at estimates time; and it would make sense for purposes of the record that the discussion about the Workmen’s Compensation Board should be recorded. It is taking place in committee room No. 2.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would rise in support of the suggestion made by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.

A year or so ago a lengthy review of various activities at the Workmen’s Compensation Board was conducted by a committee of this House, and it would certainly appear that perhaps many of the points raised at that time now will be reviewed to see whether certain changes have been made and what progress may have developed in the entire operation of the board.

I suggest that it would form a useful comparison if someone is not only able to read the results of this afternoon’s hearings, but also is able to compare them with the report that was issued by the select committee of the Legislature in the last year. I would hope that they could be recorded in this circumstance because I think it would be of great use and interest to the people of the province.

Mr. Speaker: Well, it is rather short notice. Do you understand the meeting is going to take place right now or some time later this afternoon?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members who are on the committee would be delighted to hold it over until the evening, or for an hour or two, if it took that long.

Mr. Speaker: May I suggest that the committee as a whole consider it; and if it is the committee’s wish, I will be approachable -- and we will see if it can be worked out physically.

Orders of the day.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves second reading of Bill 190, An Act to Amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the government has at long last brought forward legislation which is going to allow for control by municipal councils over the various noise problems that exist in many communities. We are pleased to see that section 95(a) is going to be added to this Act which will allow the local councils, subject to the minister’s approval, to make the kind of regulations and provisions that have been long overdue in many communities.

There is one thing that I would appreciate hearing from the minister upon, and that is with respect to the codes which will be developed under the new subsection 2 of this section 95(a). It would appear reasonable to me that the ministry should be able to provide a generally satisfactory model bylaw that many communities generally might wish to bring in, with perhaps some local amendments on their own particular part. I think that if this bylaw is brought before the municipalities, so that there is a general approach within the province, it may prove beneficial in the long term.

I would expect that there may well be litigation, depending upon any subjective terms that one municipality may use in order to deal with a certain operation or business rather than the general operation of businesses within the community. This kind of subjective approach is surely not the thing we would want to develop into general legislation. The rules which come forward surely should be basically the same for most parts of the province and where there are certain particular problem industries, or problem situations, they should be dealt with evenly and equitably throughout Ontario.

I would appreciate some consideration being given to the possibility of a model set of bylaw conditions or terms so that an industry, shall we say in Cornwall, is dealt with the same way as an industry might be, say, in Fort Frances, if in two cases paper companies were emitting what might be considered an offensive odour to people in those communities. Surely, the terms of dealing with these should be similar so that we have a good and balanced approach to this kind of legislation across the province.

Other than the other two minor amendments in the bill I think there is nothing further of principle particularly and we shall vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I think if any bill ever deserves the description of anticlimax, Bill 190 is that bill.

I have here an article from the Toronto Telegram of Feb. 23, 1970 --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He’s an anticlimactic minister.

Mr. Burr: -- which is almost five years ago, entitled, “There’s No Escaping Noise, the Unseen Enemy.” In it was the interesting sentence, and I’m quoting: “Last week Ontario Resources minister -- ” that’s what they called him in those days -- “George Kerr, put this province ahead of the rest of Canada with his announcement of projected noise control legislation.”

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Noise control by headline.

Mr. Burr: By merely making this announcement Ontario took first place, despite the fact that Quebec and Alberta already had legislation on the books. For example, Quebec had already established 85 decibels as the maximum industrial noise level and required ear protection devices where needed. Alberta had set maximum levels to which a worker could be exposed. For example, 12 hours at 85 db, six hours at 90 db and one minute at 112 db.

Where these limits were exceeded the noise must be suppressed or protective devices must be supplied to the workers. So, just how the mere announcement by the then minister put Ontario ahead of other provinces having actual legislation on the books and enforcing it was beyond my comprehension. My reason for mentioning the article at all is to point out that five years later Ontario still has no noise control legislation except some vague regulations under the Industrial Safety Act that set no decibel standards at all.

At the 1969 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, doctors reported various experiments showing that noise causes stress and tension and, occasionally, intolerable nervous strain; that noise makes people irritable, unsociable and quarrelsome; that noise can cause seizure in some cases of epilepsy; that even unborn children can be disturbed by noise and there is a belief among some scientists that malformation of children can be caused in the womb by noise in the environment.

Other investigators have discovered that excess noise contributes to heart attacks, high blood pressure, ulcers and even sexual impotency.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Oh, no. That is terrible.

Mr. Burr: Impaired vision and loss of balance have been attributed also to excessive noise. Of course, loss of hearing is becoming recognized as a cause for workmen’s compensation. One large steel company in the United States a few years ago had to pay out over $300,000 to settle claims for hearing losses suffered by over 200 workers, and the experts claim that urban noise in the United States is doubling every 10 years. The loss of production caused by loss of time and loss of efficiency has been estimated at $4 billion in the United States.

Every excess noise is insidious in that its harmful effects are often imperceptibly gradual. It causes muscular tension and contributes to heart disease, as I mentioned, even to neurosis. The control of noise may be costly but the lack of control is even more costly, because society faces the economic loss and even the industrialists suffer the economic loss.

One aspect of this long period of delay on the part of the government in bringing forward any legislation at all that I have found frustrating is that noise consultants have had a field day doing expensive studies for various municipalities. For example, four years ago Toronto launched a $325,000 study which would cover 20 months; 12 months being devoted to monitoring and evaluating noise, four more months to be spent on predicting the sound levels expected from development projects, and another four months drawing up suggestions for anti-noise measures and drafting a revised anti-noise bylaw for the city of Toronto.

On Oct. 24, in the past year, the minister disclosed that there would be no provincial legislation to control or curb noise. Instead, he would produce a model bylaw which municipalities could pass or not as they chose, and I presume they could also change and modify the model bylaw if they choose. That is all we have to show for the five years of promises from this ministry and this government; a model bylaw that nobody may ever implement. Noise pollution has been deplored ever since the time of the ancient Romans. The satirist Juvenal said:

“Insomnia causes more deaths among Roman invalids than any other factor. How much sleep, I ask you, can one get in lodgings here? Unbroken nights are a rich man’s privilege. The wagons thundering past through these narrow twisting streets, the curses of draymen caught in a traffic jam, these alone would suffice to jolt the doziest sea cow of an emperor into permanent wakefulness.”

So we can see that noise irritated Juvenal to such an extent that he called the emperor unkind names.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is not even an emperor. Doesn’t it jolt him into activity? It did Juvenal, a long time ago. The noise is about six times as great now.

Mr. Burr: It is supposed to be doubling every 10 years, so it is at least six times as great. Even Juvenal knew that noise -- that is, loud, uninvited sound -- was injurious to health. Modern medical research indicates that noise constitutes a health hazard, not only as a cause of deafness but also in other ways which I have mentioned. The heart and the blood vessels are affected by noise, so is the output of hormones from glands and the secretions of acid from the stomach all affected by noise. Even the ability of the eyes to focus can be affected by noise.

Because individuals differ in their tolerance of noise, it has been difficult to decide upon acceptable levels. Everyone finds daytime noise easier to tolerate than noise at night. Noise is easier for healthy individuals to tolerate than it is for those who are ill. It’s also easier for persons who are making or sponsoring noise to tolerate it than it is for those who feel they are having the noise forced upon them -- who feel they are the victims of the noise pollution. Nevertheless, a consensus seems to have been achieved whereby the 85 db level is regarded as the point where hazards begin.

The most serious noise threat is in industry where sawmills, steel plants and construction equipment are in constant operation. Hearing loss is usually so gradual that it is not noticed until it has become permanent. According to insurance experts, one out of every five workers in the United States is slowly going deaf because of noise in his place of work -- shop, office or factory. Truck drivers and rock musicians are among the most vulnerable.

Just think of it, Mr. Speaker; 20 per cent of the American work force slowly going deaf, and we are going to have a model bylaw that may or may not be implemented as communities see fit.

A recent California study revealed that out of 26 different construction equipment units tested, 25 had noise levels above human tolerance. Our own Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) once told us that in tests including 55 farm tractors and 18 other pieces of farm equipment not one of them was below the 85 db level, which is the threshold of hearing harm.

A Saskatchewan health department study showed that farmers had greater loss of hearing than the general public. The loss increases with the amount of time spent on tractors. Among the older farmers cultivating two or more sections of land out in Saskatchewan, 60 per cent had trouble understanding normal speech.

In May of 1972 I introduced a bill called, at that time, Bill 59, the Noise Pollution Control Act, 1972. If I remember correctly, members from all parties in the House indicated support for the principle of the bill, that is for the province to control noise pollution. Yet today, in February, 1975, we are offered a bill to pass over to municipalities the responsibility for controlling noise.

Consider some of the prospects. Some municipalities will pass legislation and thereby set standards; others probably will not do so. The province will become a patchwork quilt of municipalities, some enforcing the standards, others having no standards to enforce. What is legal in one area will probably be illegal a few feet away in another community.

Just to give you one example, Mr. Speaker, le us think of snowmobiles. Most snowmobile operators are exposed to from 100 to 125 db when driving their machines. According to some experts two hours at 100 db is the maximum safe period. At 115 db, 15 minutes on a snowmobile might be too long an exposure. The National Research Council has recommended the wearing of ear plugs for anyone driving a snowmobile for more than 10 minutes.

So you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the confusion which just this one item will cause if some communities have regulations, others have different regulations and others have none at all. Unless this model bylaw, which we haven’t seen yet, has minimum standards that must be included, it seems to me the bylaw will be most unsatisfactory. Unless the minister can convince me otherwise I feel that in protest we must oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments with reference to this bill and to confirm what my colleague from Kitchener has said, that without some sort of model bylaw it will be most difficult to determine exactly how to take care of this question of noise pollution.

I happen to live in the northwestern portion of the borough of Etobicoke, Mr. Speaker; and that is the borough I represent. Besides the usual noise pollution problems that come from industry and about which we have complained to the minister and his department on many occasions, we have the problem of the noise from Malton airport. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that all airplanes must land and take off at Malton airport, but in order to arrive at Malton and to get away from Malton, they must fly over other areas -- Mississauga, Etobicoke, North York.

For years, Mr. Speaker, this question of noise pollution has been discussed in this House, and for years we have waited upon this government to bring forth a solution. As the House leader for this party has stated, we will support this bill; but I want to point out to the minister that unless the model bylaw that is proposed takes care of problems that arise in one area and create a problem in another, then we are no further ahead than we have been for many years.

Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, between 8 and 10 o’clock in the morning, as on many evenings, I heard the rumble of jet airplanes coming over my own home. Perhaps the hon. minister doesn’t live anywhere near an airport, but if he did --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He is going to, some time soon.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- I am certain that we would have a comprehensive, province-wide noise bylaw by now. I can’t tell this House how debilitating and enervating it is when the house shakes, the windows rattle; in some cases the smell of jet fuel that is dumped is so bad people get sick. The previous speaker spoke at great length about the effects that noise pollution can have on the health of individuals. We in the borough of Etobicoke have suffered many of these effects as a result of the noise from Malton airport.

Mr. Speaker, I would call upon this minister to look at the problem of noise pollution from a province-wide basis. Besides granting the individual municipalities the right to pass their own bylaws, there should be a province-wide noise pollution bylaw so that problems of noise from airports such as Malton could be kept at a minimum.

Mr. Speaker, all sorts of people have written to me, to the Premier (Mr. Davis) of this province, and to the hon. minister’s department, telling him about the question of noise pollution from Malton airport. On behalf of these people and as a resident of an area that suffers badly from noise pollution from Malton airport, I would ask the hon. minister at this time to consider making an approach to his counterpart or to the Minister of Transport at Ottawa to see what could be done, first of all about reducing the amount of noise pollution which comes from Malton airport.

I know it is customary for people in the minister’s position here at Queen’s Park to state: “Well, that’s not our problem, it’s a federal matter.” But it is my belief that this government could bring pressure to bear on Ottawa, first of all, to see that regulations are laid down by the Department of Transport at Ottawa which provide guidelines for the noise which can be caused by an aircraft taking off or landing and any of the other incidental pollution that comes from an airport. There are all sorts of technical breakthroughs that I am certain the minister is aware of. There are new types of jet engines. There is insulation. There are new types of aircraft.

As has been spoken earlier, Mr. Speaker, it’s obvious these things cost money, but the minister is in a position where he could bring the technical knowledge of his own department to the attention of Ottawa and he could, in co-operation with Ottawa, bring out a joint set of regulations which could minimize the noise at Malton airport.

With reference to Malton airport, there has been an inquiry which has just finished. I believe it is the Gibson commission. This commission’s report, although it has not been officially made public, suggests there should be in the short run additional use made of Malton by bringing another runway into operation. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would convey to the Department of Transport at Ottawa, and to his counterpart at Ottawa, the fact that the individuals and the people who live in the vicinity of Malton airport are already at the breaking point from the noise which transports and other aircraft cause. On their behalf, I am asking that no further expansion take place at Malton airport. In that regard, and speaking personally, I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to speak to his own Premier to determine when the proposed airport at Pickering is to be started; and if he would be good enough to bring to the Premier the wishes of the people who live in Etobicoke, and my own wish, that the provincial government start immediately on the airport at Pickering so that, first of all, there be no need for a temporary enlargement of Malton.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is that the Liberal position?

Mr. Speaker: May I draw to the hon. member’s attention that I think he is varying at bit from the principle of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I’m talking about noise pollution.

Mr. Stokes: Is that the Liberal policy?

Mr. Speaker: You only can debate what is in the bill; I might draw to the hon. member’s attention.

Mr. Braithwaite: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am debating on the fact that the bill does not make provision for province-wide controls.

Mr. Lawlor: Particularly at Malton.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, therefore, if he would be good enough to press for the immediate commencement of the airport at Pickering. Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m speaking personally -- that is my opinion and that’s what I’m asking the minister to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some years ago I introduced a bill concerning noise pollution; other members have done the same. Nothing has been done about this up to now. I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Etobicoke and the people of Mississauga who live in the Malton airport neighbourhood, and who are suffering grievously at this time from the noise pollution and the air pollution caused by aircraft, should be protected. This is an ideal opportunity for the minister to consider a problem such as this, and problems which will arise from the Pickering airport when it is built.

I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to consult with his counterparts, or other officials at Ottawa, to see if a joint set of regulations, bylaws, or some sort of joint co-operation couldn’t be worked out, so that this type of problem could be taken care of, and regions such as the borough of Etobicoke would not find themselves in the position where they might pass a bylaw which would have no effect on noise which arises in another area, such as Malton airport.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are my comments with reference to this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill, I wonder how it is that my friends to the right are able to support the bill and at the same time talk against it in the manner they have. I also wonder if the hon. member for Etobicoke ever speaks to his friends, Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Flemming, who sit in the seats of the mighty in Ottawa and who should have some influence there in connection with this whole matter?

Now certainly in my riding of Yorkview we get a great deal of aircraft noise and I can quite understand what he’s been talking about. I, too, would like to see some regulations so that we have a frontal attack upon this whole problem of noise pollution. We need it there, we certainly need it in his riding, and we need it across the province.

Mr. Braithwaite: I’ll speak to Messrs. Flemming and Gillespie.

Mr. Young: All right.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why it is that we are simply giving to the municipalities the right to pass municipal bylaws controlling noise pollution.

Mr. Stokes: Complete cop-out.

Mr. Young: There is no way in the world that industry is going to listen to small municipalities. Are the airlines going to listen to Etobicoke or Malton or any other municipality where they might fly?

I remember dealing with the automobile industry. I’ve been interested in the matter of automobile safety over the years. One thing we learned is that the industry always said: “We can’t make cars safer.” They said this until it was mandated by government that safer cars should come. Piece by piece and item by item, the governments mandated that certain changes should take place, and the industry suddenly discovered that it could design those motor cars to adapt to the situation and to conform with the legislation.

Now there is just no way we are going to have any kind of frontal attack upon noise pollution until we get wider standards set, and the municipalities are able to set and to enforce them. In most cases municipalities aren’t going to bother; small municipalities will simply say we haven’t the power to enforce a bylaw, so why pass it. I can think of large municipalities that might very well set up a noise bylaw and have the power to enforce it through an inspection service because they can afford to do it; but just across the street from that municipality a smaller one may decide it is not going to do anything that it hasn’t the financial resources to enforce is, so the bylaw is left out So across that street there may be certain industries that are very high in noise pollution; or as the member for Windsor says, they will likely move there too.

The fact is there is no way the municipality which has passed the bylaw can enforce it in a neighbouring municipality.

So I say to the minister, that if he is serious about this business -- and we have talked about it in this House for a long time -- he is going to set a decibel level which is mandate across the province.

He certainly wouldn’t make it any higher than 85 db. If he can mandate that decibel level he will find that it will be taken seriously by all those who are responsible for noise pollution; and then we will be getting somewhere. But as long as we leave it fragmented, as long as we leave it to the individual municipalities to pass the bylaws and to enforce them, then noise pollution is going to continue as one of the dangers of life in our civilization.

So I say to the minister today, surely he is not going to be satisfied with this kind of tokenism, this kind of weak legislation, which nothing, really, in the effective setting up and enforcement of standards in connection with noise pollution. So I ask the minister to withdraw this legislation and to bring into this House legislation which sets minimum standards -- across the province at least -- and make some provision for enforcement of those minimum standards right across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make a few comments concerning an Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Act that gives municipalities permission to introduce noise bylaws.

Going back in the history of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, I can recall that at one time there were quite detailed studies carried out in the city of Toronto, and if I am not mistaken at one time there was a select committee of this House that looked into the effects of air pollution, smoke control, and had noise as one of the sidelines in the studies. Back in 1961 the then Ontario Department of Transport, now the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, came down with a report on motor vehicle noise research. This report is quite detailed and it should be must reading for the minister before he introduces any type of model bylaw with which a municipality can control noise,

I would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, to have had noise control part of provincial responsibility rather than a municipal responsibility, because just as --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. B. Newman: No, I would rather see some kind of a noise bylaw than none whatsoever, and I think the introduction of noise control legislation so that municipalities can introduce their own noise bylaw will show the government this is not the correct way to approach the situation, because we are going to have a hodgepodge of bylaws introduced throughout the length and breadth of the province. One municipality may introduce a noise control bylaw, while the other will not. As a result, we’re going to have them vying for industry, and industry is going to go into the area where there is no noise control bylaw.

Just as we had a similar problem in the development of shopping centres, we may have the same problem in the development of industry throughout parts of Ontario. Rather than setting up in a given community, they’ll cross the division between one municipality and another and set up shop there, so to speak, and then punish the residents of the adjacent community with noises emanating from the industry.

The Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, I know, have some control over the effects of noise on the health of an individual. For example, in the year 1970, if I’m not mistaken, the Workmen’s Compensation Board paid out well over $1 million in claims -- claims for injury that affected the hearing of the individual and his ability to work. And in 1971, if my memory serves me correctly, the claims increased by about 27 per cent. Therefore, if it cost $1 million in 1970 to pay off claims, it would have cost substantially more in 1971; and I assume the total has progressed through the years because there was no noise control legislation on the part of the province.

As I said earlier, a municipality may attempt to attract industry by being lax in introducing a noise bylaw and, as a result, it may lead to hodgepodge development and to unpleasant differences between municipal councils throughout certain areas of the province.

I think the minister should have bad a model bylaw so that municipalities at least could start immediately to introduce their bylaw. Proving to the minister that it doesn’t work well this way --

Mr. Lawlor: One would think he would have that at least.

Mr. B. Newman: -- and that it would work better if it were at the provincial level rather than solely at the municipal level, in my own community there are noises emanating from another jurisdiction which can cause problems. For instance, there are the boats going up and down the Detroit River, which means we’re not only involved with another municipality but with another jurisdiction; as a result, federal authorities on both sides of the international boundary will have to be involved.

On the Detroit River there are ferries that transport railroad cars between Windsor and Detroit. In one location, around 120 Oak, at Riverside Dr., there happens to be, I believe, a nine- or 10-floor senior citizens’ high-rise building. Here we have the elderly living in nice accommodation, and right in front of them is a ferry shunting back and forth, taking railroad cars between Windsor and Detroit. The senior citizens are being bothered at a time in life when they should not be bothered, when they should be able to enjoy peace and tranquility. But they can’t open their windows at any time of the year because of the noises from the railroad facility along the Detroit River.

My own community also suffers from the effects of aircraft, as was the case in the ridings of the two previous speakers. The flight path for Windsor airport is over some substantial residential areas, which are not only subjected to fume pollution from aircraft coming in and landing but also to the noise from aircraft taking off. In my area the noise is greater when they take off.

I live approximately four miles from the airport, Mr. Speaker, yet let me tell you that the house actually vibrates when some of the big 747s go thundering off on their way to the sunny south, transporting primarily residents of the United States who are looking for a holiday week or weekend in the West Indies and points farther south than that.

I also see railroad tracks in a community. Were the government to hasten its programme of relocation of railroad tracks, then I think they would be doing a real service to the community. I look along probably one of the more beautiful areas in the Province of Ontario, that is, the drive along the Detroit River, Mr. Speaker, where you can see the Detroit skyline, yet directly in front of you for some area of that you have the railroad tracks. The rail facility there certainly isn’t pleasant to the eye, let alone pleasant to those who have to live within 150 or 200 ft of the railroad track. Not only is there noise but also other types of pollution that accompany that type of an operation.

I can also see that, with the relocation and the removing of those tracks from an area like that into some other area within either the city limits or outside limits, then probably a lot of the noise problems could be eliminated.

The CPR railroad track happens to come right at the southern extremity of my riding. It goes through a fairly nice area -- in fact, one of the better areas of the community -- yet trains come thundering through at times. Once upon a time, when we had the steam engine, they didn’t carry and tow as many cars as they do today with a diesel. They’ll put two, three, or maybe even sometimes four diesels towing any number of railroad ears. The tremendous weight they are towing and the working of the diesel engines just vibrate the whole terrain in the area.

There are homes that are worth anywhere from $50,000 to maybe $200,000 in the area. It’s only a recent innovation. When people moved into the area they thought the type of facility that was there was going to remain as such. With the advent of the diesel engine and the ability to tow heavier traffic, and maybe because it was economically more viable for them to have a train towing a substantial number of cars, they came along and punished the people in the area.

I hope that any noise bylaw, any sample bylaw, would give the municipality the power to come along and effectively control noise from the railroad facility, even though that may be a federal responsibility, as I think is the case in the control of the railroad location. I think something has to be done so the municipality has some control over that, otherwise they are going to keep punishing people either by aircraft or by the railroad tracks indefinitely.

There has to be some method, I don’t think of eliminating it completely but minimizing the noise from the railroad track facilities and also aircraft. I think that our ingenuity and our ability to do practically anything mechanically should be put to good use to control noise. As we all know we can take a man from the face of this earth and send him down to the moon and bring him right back, yet we seem a little slow when it comes to controlling the noise, especially that noise emanating from aircraft and from the railroad.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Moon rockets.

Mr. B. Newman: I think the need there, really, is for some type of relocation, plus technical expertise to muffle and cut down as much of that noise as possible.

Another thing that does disturb me is that in a community one may have an area zoned for a given use. An individual will set up a motorcycle shop there. It’s all right to have motorcycles and to repair motorcycles there, but when it comes to testing the motorcycles, and especially when a residential area abuts the area where the shop is located, the individual can get the permit from the city to have a motorcycle repair shop and when it comes to testing the results of his repairs he goes outside the shop-zoned area to test them. Then the people living in the area adjoining the motorcycle repair shop are bothered at all hours of the day, and sometimes night, by the testing of the repaired motorcycles.

In my own case, a man living on Highland Ave. who complained bitterly to the city found that he could do nothing. The area was zoned to permit such an establishment there. I hope that any sample bylaw the minister may introduce will come along and forbid at least the testing of automotive equipment when the premises adjoin residential property, because this man has been punished now for years and years. He’s lived in the area for 52 years. About 18 months ago some people rented a vacant store next to his place and set up a motorcycle repair shop. They are punishing him now and will continue punishing up until the time that business is removed from the area.

I certainly hope the minister brings in some type of sample bylaw for municipalities to copy and I hope it covers many of the points I have made mention of. I’m concerned about the railroad noise. I’m concerned about aircraft noise. I’m concerned about noise from various types of automotive vehicles. The study to which I referred earlier indicated back in 1961 that a problem was there and that the problem could be controlled, and it is better to be controlled on a provincial level rather than on a municipal level.

I understand the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto introduced legislation back in 1958 but found that it was inoperative. It couldn’t do anything. It couldn’t come along and enforce the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister takes some of these points I have introduced here to heart and, if necessary, amends the legislation he is introducing here in a clause by clause study so that some of these problems can be eliminated. I prefer this to be done on a provincial level, but if he is not going to do it on a provincial level let’s get a start at the thing at least on the municipal level and try to overcome the problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: The New Democratic Party is going to vote against this legislation and we further intend to divide the House. That is how strongly we feel about it. The few remarks that I have to make, Mr. Speaker, will I trust be in thorough castigation of the minister.

Almost from the time I came into this House over seven years ago -- and certainly since a certain Throne Speech, which I think was the Throne Speech of 1971, when the government hullabalooed the coming into effect of a provincial law with respect to this matter, covering the whole province, having teeth, having some points, setting up parameters. At that time the minister used to wring his hands and say that he was waiting on further research and further investigations. Since that time an infinity of other jurisdictions have moved ahead -- California, Michigan, one can name them; the list is as long as one’s arm and Ontario sits still, still twiddles its thumbs and does nothing.

As a matter of fact, may I say -- and I say this with a certain reservation -- the only decent cabinet minister having anything to do with the environment that we ever had was the first one -- I mean the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): And he wasn’t much good.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and he was pretty weak-kneed too. But since that time there has been a series of disasters, and this minister is just the latest of all the disasters. He brings in tabs on non-returnable tins or something; any type of pusillanimous, weak-kneed claptrap. It’s a pretence, it’s just pure hypocrisy on his part --

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he quit?

Mr. Lawlor: -- the present legislation that he is bringing forward, particularly in light of what his government has promised by way of the Throne Speech and what we who have attended on occasion the environmental hearings downstairs have been told.

The government is under a mandate to do this. It’s not as though it had any option about the matter; as though it could do it in due course. The matter is compulsive, it’s necessary, there is a crying need for it, and this government has made a sovereign promise to abide by it. And what does the minister do? He comes in at this latter hour before a provincial election and, as a milksop measure, presents this sort of nonsense to us. It’s innocuous legislation which has no guts to it.

Does this minister have no guts either? Can he not move in an area of this kind, where any number of other institutions have done so and where he has an obligation? The minister assumes this mantle, this ministry, precisely to bring in some such legislation.

This is the last great area in the province which is completely vacuous, where there isn’t any law that is really determinative. My colleague has pointed out the detrimental effects, particularly in whole areas of physical health, in which it has been proven, scientifically determined, to be affecting human beings in a most immediate and direct way. Noise has a tremendous influence. He didn’t go into the wide range of mental disabilities. Juvenal mentioned insomnia, but what I mean is phobias and various forms of mental disease and inability to cope which are perhaps not induced -- but even then are possibly induced -- but in many ways made worse and perpetuated by the presence of noise levels which drive people literally crazy. That is a very pervasive thing in our society and it is the minister’s job in this particular respect to do something about it.

What does he do? He delegates off to the municipalities some responsibility that the minister hasn’t even defined. He doesn’t give them any indicia; he doesn’t give them any guidelines. Where is the minister’s wretched model code? Where has he brought it into being? Nowhere.

I have heard the environmental people, out there in attendance upon our caucus and otherwise, talk about this measure over the past 2½ years. And at the beginning they spoke sometimes in high anticipation and hope. We were optimistic; something was going to happen; it had been promised by the government. There was a certain confidence in the minister and his ministry and in the government that it would be forthcoming. But here we sit in these latter dreary days in February without any sign of it.

To compound his negligence and his complete incapacity to hold the post that he has, he sifts it off to somebody else without any guidelines whatsoever telling them what to do.

I say the minister’s legislation is totally innocuous. Not only that, it’s unnecessary. As I know the situation, there are bylaws, at least where I come from in Etobicoke, at the present time on noise.

I agree they are completely unenforceable. I had a case of a garage on Evans Ave. in Etobicoke; the blast coming out of that place was simply dreadful. They took him to court under the municipal bylaw, with the building inspector and others giving testimony. Of course, they were thrown out. There were no standards. The evidential quality wasn’t great enough in trying to pin it down, trying to measure and trying to convince the court under the circumstances.

That is the whole reason -- because municipal bylaws were ineffective and couldn’t be enforced -- that the minister was to bring in legislation to cover that, that was my understanding. The municipalities felt their hands were tied, that there was nothing they could do. They have made appeals to this government over a long, long period of time now, time out of mind, asking the minister to do something about it. And what does he do this afternoon? He goes out to the basketball court and hands the ball back to them and says: “Go ahead, bright boys, and do the job I am incompetent to do.”

If he is really incompetent and he recognizes the degree of his ineptitude, then he should quit, get out, because he is only making a mockery of this assembly and this House in coming and presenting legislation of this kind to us.

I say that maybe the noise has got to him. Maybe he is deaf to appeals. Maybe his decibel level is falling rapidly. In any case, in a speech of this kind, I am endeavouring to spur the minister on, to give him a kind of lift. If he can’t be coaxed into doing something, maybe he can be bludgeoned, I don’t know. We try everything to make him move and what do we get? A complete washout, a dreadful watering down of everything. He sits there, mute of malice, in a kind of bath of stupidity. He has the equipment; he has a wonderful staff around him and they clearly equip him with what is necessary in this particularly area. He can designate areas as he sees fit within his legislation if he only had the gumption to bring it into effect.

Now that’s the way things look to us over here. We can’t give any recognition to this kind of malarkey. We will not only ask that it be taken into committee to give it the roughest time possible, but we will contest it on this occasion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill before us deals with perhaps the smallest part of the five aspects of noise pollution. All these mailers have been discussed by this government over the past few years; especially by the former Minister of the Environment as well as this Minister of the Environment. It is almost inconceivable that the government is dealing with only one of five aspects of the noise problem.

The original Environmental Protection Act had sound vibrations in its definition of contaminates. Away back in 1971 when the Premier announced that there was a bill of rights for the protection of the environment, the whole matter of noise pollution was under discussion. It was said that as the ministry developed its other aspects of environmental pollution controls, noise would be dealt with at a later date.

The people went along with this. My own municipality wanted to do something about it two or three years ago. They asked me at that time how long it would take. I said they were doing research and it would take two to 2½ years before the minister came out with regulations to deal with noise under the Environmental Protection Act.

They said: “Why should it take so long? They said it would be less than that.”

I said: “Well, if they say a year, give them 2½ years and they might get it done.”

We find now that after 3½ years all the government is dealing with is a model bylaw for the municipalities.

Let me just read, Mr. Speaker, some of the things that have been said by a former Minister of the Environment, as well as this minister.

There was a release, “Toward a Quieter Future,” issued by the Hon. J. A. C. Auld, the former Minister of the Environment, and the deputy minister, Everett Biggs. It dealt with “Noise, the Shock Heard around the World.” It said:

“Ontario is presently preparing noise regulations under its Environmental Protection Act. These regulations will be enforced by the air management branch of the Ministry of the Environment.

“The first will be aimed at curbing operational noise from motor vehicles and will put about five to 10 per cent of all vehicles on the road in violation -- the majority of those because they are being driven noisily.

“While this programme of noise enforcement will eventually be extended to all Ontario, this regulation will be put into effect initially in the cities of Toronto and Hamilton. Vehicle noise will be measured by instruments placed along roadsides. Drivers or owners of those vehicles exceeding noise standards will be subject to fines.”

We heard expounded in detail how environmental offices, in co-operation with the municipal police and the OPP, would set up their highly portable equipment. We were told: “Oh yes, we can whip this around as easy as a radar unit.” They would set up their highly portable equipment and catch those offending motorcycles and those offending trucks. It was all going to be done through the air management branch. It sounded like an extremely good idea.

Mr. Breithaupt: When was that?

Mr. Good: The agencies were to be acting all across the province. Well it’s a very significant thing that the ministry did not put a date on any of its proclamations about dealing with noise. This document I have just read doesn’t have a date on it.

With this next document, of course, I smartened up a little and put my own date on it when it became available. This is a summary of the provincial noise programmes, 1973-1974. This particular document says: “Beginning in July, 1973.” Well, the ministry released this, but stroked out the word “July” and wrote “November” in it. It says:

“Vehicle noise regulations could be put into effect that would limit the operational noise levels of individual autos, trucks, buses and motorcycles at different speed ranges during acceleration. The noise levels are selected so that five to 10 per cent of the vehicles may be in violation.”

There was another quote put out and it gave the levels of noise they anticipated would be selected for the various types of vehicle noise. As recently as last year we were told the work was proceeding satisfactorily; in Metro Toronto and in Hamilton they were doing their spot checks. They were doing their studies and everything was great and we understood the regulations would be in effect. Finally, in the Ministry of the Environment estimates last fall, we heard the disastrous news that the province wanted out.

Either the minister is inefficient or else he is biting off something he can’t chew and he’s throwing the responsibility to the municipalities to deal with, saying it’s not his responsibility. It’s one or the other. One doesn’t talk about a thing for about five years and then suddenly give up the ghost and push it off on the municipality unless there’s some underlying cause.

The people of Ontario will now know that this ministry is just unable to deal with this problem of noise, because it is shucking it off on the municipalities. Voting against the bill isn’t going to show the minister what a bad job he has done of it. He has done one little thing; and for that, I suppose, we’ve got to be grateful, because the old existing bylaws dealing with noise dated back to 1858, under the Municipal Act of that year. An Act respecting the Municipal Institutions of Upper Canada was given royal assent in the name of Queen Victoria in 1858. A section of that Municipal Act dealt with the fact that municipalities could make regulations to regulate the ringing of bells, the blowing of horns, shouting and unusual noises, as well as the barking of dogs.

From 1858 until 1975, the government has now come up with one little aspect of the noise problem. It’s unbelievable. In the regulations of operational noises of vehicles, which the minister has researched and checked out in all the municipalities, it was going to handle them the same as it did the air management branch.

Now I must confess that while there are many problems in certain cities about the air management branch, in my own region the air management branch has done a reasonably good job. They’ve cleaned up all the sulphur foundries and all the ferrous foundries in the area; I think there were 14 of them. It took them quite a while, but I would say they now have all the foundries under control.

It was a natural succession of events that they would now spend their time in getting the noise problems cleaned up. Instead of that, this new minister decides that he doesn’t want any part of being responsible for noise pollution across the Province of Ontario, so he has probably talked his officials and the Premier and the government into shucking it off on the municipalities. He probably did it on the basis that they can save a bundle of money by doing it that way and have some money left to hand out goodies, because this is an election year. Well he is going to reap more harm from doing this. He has now alienated another group of people in the province, those who thought he was going to do something about noise.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is going to vote for it so he should be careful? He doesn’t want to alienate any person along the way, does he?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Good: The ministry was going to tackle ambient noise levels. In particular they have done studies in Hamilton, London, Woodstock, Kingston, North Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. The city of Toronto has at the same time carried out its studies. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities have proven that you can’t get convictions under noise bylaws. Unless the minister tables with that bill his model bylaw, we can’t tell what’s in here at all. Out of respect and courtesy to this House, he should have at least shown us what he was going to give the municipalities.

As for stationary noise source regulations, this is what the minister said:

“With the information derived from Phase II, plus a study of specific types of noise sources, regulations will be formulated for a wide variety of stationary noise sources. These regulations will likely limit the noise level at the property line, or at the receptor in the case of less populated locations.”

Then the ministry went on to state that it was going to provide a model bylaw for the municipalities to deal with nuisance noise, such as noisy neighbours having a party and this type of thing. That couldn’t be controlled in any other way. The minister doesn’t even say in this legislation what types of anti-noise bylaws he is going to suggest the municipalities pass. He hasn’t given us any indication what kind of model bylaws he is going to give the municipalities.

Finally then, the fifth point, the ministry was going to control operational noise of recreational devices, such as boats, trail bikes, snowmobiles, and at gun clubs and the like. All in all, away back from 1971, the ministry did a great job of making promises. Unfortunately, they have taken one little lousy step -- pardon me, one little step here --

Mr. B. Newman: I think the member was right the first time.

Mr. Braithwaite: Come on, say it louder.

Mr. Good: -- to provide the municipalities with a model bylaw. So that means that the municipalities are going to have to set the framework within which to enforce noise regulations. The city of Kitchener, in co-operation with Pollution Probe from Waterloo University, have a noise committee of council, and they dealt extensively with setting up a model bylaw. Edmonton had a very good model bylaw, if my memory is correct. The city of Kitchener was ready to enforce its bylaw but it got letter after letter after letter from this ministry saying. “Forget about it, we are going to look after noise as soon as we get our regulations ready. You are wasting your time, you are wasting your money worrying about establishing a bylaw.”

Here is a letter, Mr. Speaker, that the minister wrote back to a constituent of mine last summer. The letter is addressed to Mrs. Walter Nurgarth, 17 Young St., Waterloo. She had written to the Premier complaining about the inability of the municipalities to control noise within the municipality, and asked why the province doesn’t do something about it. She had contacted me and I told her the province would be going to do something about it. Believing it to be true I said, “We expect it very shortly.”

We have been talking about if for three years and while that is a short length of time for this government to talk about something before they do it, I really believed that they were going to do something about it.

Mr. Foulds: Beware of Tories making promises.

Mr. Good: The letter goes:

“Thank you for forwarding to myself a copy of your letter of April 17 to Premier Davis concerning an anti-noise law. [This was 1974.] The Ministry of the Environment has been involved in the field of noise control for a considerable time now, but it is only in the past six to 12 months that we have been able to recruit a significant number of people trained in noise control.”

In the estimates the minister had told me that one of the reasons the province was giving up was the lack of trained people in the province. Now here he tells her that he has attracted a significant number of trained people in noise control. How does the minister expect the municipalities to do anything about it? Where are they going to get the staff?

“With this experience now available to us, we are concentrating our efforts toward the preparation of two regulations that will enable us to control these noise sources that represent the greatest problem to the residents of Ontario, as witnessed by the number of complaints about noise that we have received. These two regulations will deal with the noise from roadway vehicles and the noise from stationary sources, such as industrial plants, air conditioners, car washes, etc.

“When regulations dealing with these aspects of the noise problem have been prepared, we will be addressing ourselves to other problem areas, such as the preparation of a model municipal bylaw to deal with noises caused by the inconsiderate actions of people.”

Well, somehow the minister got to that, but he bypassed the important stuff.

“Such a bylaw would be available for adoption and enforcement by a municipality at the discretion of its council. It will be prepared to avoid some of the difficulties that are now experienced in enforcing bylaws with wording such as ‘unusual noises likely to disturb the inhabitants are prohibited.’ The intent of the model bylaw will be to be more specific in terms of what is or is not to be permitted.

“Please be assured that the provincial government is extremely concerned about the problem of controlling noise and is concentrating on the preparation of laws to control this insidious form of pollution. As noted above, we also intend to support and advise municipalities in the development of bylaws for effective noise control at the local level.

“Yours sincerely,

“William C. Newman,

“Minister of the Environment.”

Mr. Braithwaite: Garbage.

Mr. Good: I don’t know how the minister can face the people of the province --

Mr. Lawlor: A terrific letter.

Mr. Foulds: That’s just in case you have an identity crisis these days.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Good: -- having gone through all this charade for the last three or four years stating what they are going to do -- they are going to handle it through the air management branch; they are going to have uniform provincial regulations. All we heard about the other aspects of the private sewage problem in the province was because there were unequal regulations all across the province. Finally the minister assured us that the bill last year, the amendments to this same Act, would guarantee equal enforcement all across the province, so that one medical officer of health would not make mandatory what his next-door neighbour would not allow.

The same thing is going to happen when the municipalities have to try to do something about the noise problem. Mr. Speaker, you’re going to find the same situation that now exists as it relates to the location of industry when the discharge of metallic wastes into municipal sewage systems varies by 100 per cent from one municipality to another. Naturally, if an industry can put twice as much contaminant into a municipal sewage system in Toronto than it can in Kitchener, there’s going to be an incentive to locate in Toronto. Similarly, if an industry can go into a municipality that does not have noise bylaws, or it has a laxer noise bylaw, that is where it is going to locate.

Mr. Speaker, regarding the bill itself there are a few questions that I think should be made clear. Under the definition section it would appear to me that a region will be precluded from making noise bylaws. The definition of municipalities says: “Local municipality means a city, town, village or township.” Surely, it would be advantageous to have, in those municipalities where regional governments exist, the noise problem dealt with on a regional basis. Maybe I’m misinterpreting this.

Another thing that I’m concerned about is that these bylaws will be subject to part XXI of the Municipal Act and, when I looked that up, it appears to me as a layman that that means fines under these noise bylaws will be limited to $300. Now, if I’m wrong on that I would like to be corrected.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister should at least have had the courage to show us what he is intending to give to the municipalities as guidelines for their bylaws. Actually, it’s almost disgusting, Mr. Speaker, that he’s come forth with such a little bit after four years of promises.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in this debate?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to all the comments today on the amendment to the Act regarding noise. I think a few things should be cleared up regarding the legislation we brought forward today.

The purpose of this legislation, of course, was to give some power to the municipalities to pass bylaws under the Environmental Protection Act to eliminate many of the problems they have in those municipalities which have passed legislation or bylaws under the Ontario Municipal Act.

When this legislation is passed we intend to mail out a copy of a model noise bylaw to every municipality in the Province of Ontario. We would hope we will be able to do that within the next two or three weeks. We want their comments; we want their suggestions; and we are prepared to meet with the municipal people throughout the province to discuss this model bylaw. It is a very sophisticated bylaw, but a municipality, depending on its location --

Mr. Lawlor: If the minister has it ready now, why haven’t we got it?

Hon. Mr. Newman: Because it is not quite finalized. There are to be two or three changes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: Why didn’t the minister hold the bill up until he had everything ready?

Hon. W. Newman: The bylaw will be ready to go next week to the municipalities in this province for their comments.

Mr. Good: The minister told us in 1973 that he had everything ready.

Hon. W. Newman: The bylaw is ready.

Anyway, we will be taking this to the municipalities; we will be asking them for their comments. One of the reasons why we suggested in this legislation that there should be ministerial approval on the particular piece of legislation was to get some degree of uniformity in various parts of the province. Whereas a city like Kitchener-Waterloo, in the member’s area, or the city of Toronto may want a very sophisticated bylaw, some of our smaller municipalities may require a much less sophisticated piece of legislation or bylaw.

Fortunately today, for a cost of about $500 a piece of equipment can be purchased by the smaller municipalities which will give them a very accurate reading of the noise problems they are faced with in their municipalities. If the small municipality has anyone to carry out this work, we’re prepared to train that person for a week to use this particular type of equipment.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister provide them with that equipment -- the sophisticated devices?

Hon. W. Newman: No, they can buy a piece of equipment for testing noise for about $500. We will not buy it for them, no. But we will train them on the use of them and how to handle them so they can actually lay charges under their bylaw. One of the problems, as the member said himself, has been the inability of the municipalities to deal effectively with the bylaws they have now. Under the legislation we are dealing with today, they will be allowed to do just that.

When these model bylaws go out to the municipalities, we will be asking them for their comments on them.

Mr. Foulds: I’d like to see those comments as they come back.

Hon. W. Newman: There are some municipalities -- Toronto for one -- that have legislation now, and they are allowed to keep their legislation. They don’t have to come in under this particular legislation unless they want to.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister has a bloody nerve bringing in this legislation. What’s wrong with him, coming in with carte blanche legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: The hon. member may think so, Mr. Speaker, but I see him wearing that thing in the House, and I wonder if he is wearing it because he gets tired of listening to himself.

Mr. Lawlor: He is a pretty purblind minister, that’s all I can say. Who does he think he is?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s the height of nonsense.

Hon. W. Newman: I listen to the hon. member --

Mr. Lawlor: It is an arbitrary piece of business.

Hon. W. Newman: -- but he obviously doesn’t want to listen to me --

Mr. Lawlor: Not the way he puts legislation through this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: The minister must be bloody well ashamed of himself.

Hon. W. Newman: I am very proud of the fact that we are saying to the municipalities, “Look, we are giving you the opportunity to pass these bylaws. We’ll help you. We’ll give you the expertise. We’ll give you the knowledge that’s necessary. We’ll help you work out a model bylaw for your municipality.”

Mr. Lawlor: The last people he tells are people in the House.

Hon. W. Newman: As for some of the comments by some of the members opposite about airplane noise and airport noise, they will realize that both of these come directly under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada; and the federal government has cut back on its funding allocation through their federal noise programme this year to the point that the programme has been effectively suspended. But we are now moving forward with our programme here.

Mr. Foulds: We’re going forward with our programme? Tell us how.

Hon. W. Newman: In response to the member for Etobicoke, who asked me to endorse the airport at Pickering, quite obviously he doesn’t know my feelings about that. However, I assume that’s the official position of his party; if it is, I’d like to hear it.

Mr. Braithwaite: What are the minister’s feelings?

Hon. W. Newman: My feelings are very well known. The Hon. Jean Marchand -- well, we are not going to get into that today.

Mr. Braithwaite: What are the minister’s feelings?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Shall we return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Braithwaite: The minister said I don’t know his feelings. I would like to know what his feelings are.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the member. If he doesn’t know my feelings, quite obviously he doesn’t read the newspapers.

Mr. Foulds: He doesn’t have to tell us his whole love life.

Mr. Braithwaite: Why does the minister feel sorry for himself?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we feel that we can work with the municipalities of this province to build a bylaw with them and, with our help and guidance, one they’ll be proud of, because sometimes it’s difficult to have particular bylaws for the city of Toronto or the city of Windsor which would be applicable in some of the more northern municipalities. This bylaw will be going out to the municipalities, and there will be a lot of discussion before it is passed. We’ll be working with them to work it out on an effective basis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he would be good enough to comment on how the model bylaw is going to regulate noise pollution from airports? He didn’t cover that in his talk.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I just finished saying that as far as noise from aircraft and airports is concerned, it’s strictly under federal jurisdiction. Surely he knows that.

Mr. Braithwaite: That’s a cop-out.

Hon. W. Newman: No, it’s not a cop-out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: The hon. member’s federal counterparts have cut their budget so much that in effect they have wiped out their noise programme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: It’s a cop-out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Good: What about the question I asked?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; there was a question regarding regional municipalities. We said “local municipality,” and we meant “local municipality.” Under this legislation, if all the local municipalities in a regional municipality agree, they will be permitted to go that route by passing a similar bylaw and turning the enforcement over to the region if they wish to do that.

If they can agree within the region, that really takes care of that.

Was there one other question?

Mr. Good: What about the fines?

Hon. W. Newman: The fines, yes. The fines are from $50 up to $1,000.

Mr. Good: Under that section?

Hon. W. Newman: No, under a section of the Ontario Municipal Board Act and the bylaws, they will be permissive from $50 to $1,000.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 190.

The House divided on the motion, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Auld Bales Beckett Bernier Birch Braithwaite Breithaupt Campbell Carruthers Downer Dymond Eaton Edighoffer Evans Ewen Gaunt Gilbertson Givens Good Haggerty Hamilton Handleman Havrot Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Lane Leluk MacBeth McIlveen McNeil McNie Meen Morningstar Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nixon (Brant) Nuttall Parrott Paterson Reid Rhodes Riddell Rollins Root Ruston Scrivener Singer Smith (Simcoe East) Snow Spence Stewart Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Taylor (Carleton East) Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch White Winkler Yaremko -- 66.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Davison Deans Ferrier Foulds Germa Laughren Lawlor MacDonald Renwick Samis Stokes Young -- 15.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 66; the “nays” 15.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Minister, which committee?

Hon. W. Newman: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Which committee do members want?

An hon. member: Standing committee.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Send it out.

Mr. Lawlor: Bring in the model in the meantime. He’s not going to bring in the model in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House, so ordered.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

House in committee on Bill 190, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to speak on any section of the bill? Section 1, the hon. member for Waterloo North.

On section 1:

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I would like to know if the minister consulted with the regions and asked them whether or not they wanted to handle this on a regional basis or an area government basis, because I think it could create very large problems if various area governments adopt a different level of standard for noise than do others adjacent within the same region. You have sewage treatment on a regional basis, you have landfill on a regional basis, you have got all other types of pollution control on a provincial basis, you have got private sewage handling on a regional basis, and I just fail to understand why this would be done in this manner unless the regions have particularly asked for it. Indeed, have they been consulted on this matter? I would like to know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I was talking to the chairman of the PMLC, explaining what I was doing and pointing out that in our definition here under the Act we are talking about a “local municipality” meaning a city, town, village or township. I think as I explained to you earlier on, if the municipalities within a region can all agree on the type of bylaw they want to set up, if they can concur on that, it is possible for the municipalities to request the region to enforce it. But at this point in time we feel that we would like to get the comments of the municipalities at some future date. If the municipalities feel the regions should look after it, then certainly we would be glad to enter into consultation with them on it.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, there is too much talking going on in the Legislature. It is impossible to hear the member who wants to speak.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Further on section 1, Mr. Chairman; does that mean then, Mr. Minister, that perhaps the smallest municipality within a region has in effect a veto power to block one standard bylaw that would be in effect for the entire region? Surely if that is going to be the possibility, it would seem to me that within a region itself -- as my colleague from Waterloo North has said -- and, say, particularly in the region of Waterloo in which we are both members, that you may well find some unfortunate results.

One realizes, of course, that the whole development of a two-tier system is to leave meaningful decision-making powers at each of the levels. If, however, you have proceeded now to effectively give control to the regional level, the areas that my colleague has referred to, then it would appear to me an impractical result to not have this development based on a regional system. It seems to me that the idea of a regional bylaw that would treat people equally and fairly within the whole area would be preferable to the patchwork that could otherwise develop.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member has a point there, but you also have regional municipalities which encompass anything from a very heavily urbanized area within cities to a very rural sort of a situation. Thus here we are talking about the local municipalities, not including the regions. If they can get together and work something out, fine. We are quite prepared to work with them on it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the local municipalities now have the authority to pass bylaws in regard to noise within their municipalities; that’s up to the participating municipalities and regional governments. Why not carry it forward and give it to the municipalities which have a divergence of opinions and development? Rural areas probably don’t demand the same restrictions as a highly urbanized area would require. It’s because of these geographical and sociological differences that municipalities should be able to determine what is best within their own locale.

I certainly support the section as it is written.

Mr. Chairman: Does section 1 carry?

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2? Does any member wish to speak on section 2?

The hon. member for Lakeshore.

On section 2.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): What’s all the business about “Any regulation may be general or particular in its application, may be limited as to time and place ... ”? In other words, as in the rest and the subsequent sections here, you take away with your right hand what you gave with your left and then besides that you tie both behind your back, so that no one will be quite sure what you are up to.

In other words, you could pass a regulation -- you may make specific designations both with respect to the running of time, when it might run out, whatever the period may be -- three days, three months or three years -- and then you may zero in on a particular municipality or geographical area and make the imposition regardless. Is there no contradiction in your mind between the devolution to the municipalities of the powers that you are granting here, supposedly, whatever they may be -- Lord knows what they are -- and the fact that you reserve to yourself this plenary power of cancelling out and overriding them?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, surely -- I am sorry.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, in connection with that, Mr. Chairman, I think the idea behind “may exclude any place” was to exclude any municipality which now has a bylaw passed under the Ontario Municipal Act at this point in time and wishes to keep it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, should there not be a provision for certain types of undertakings that may offend on occasion provisions of, say, an anti-noise bylaw, there are certain industries that may have to generate noise which would otherwise be unacceptable, and it’s possible that they would be unable to operate unless their noise level was tolerated? Some people would prohibit the ringing of church bells, I suppose, if you permitted them to. Would this then provide for specific industries or specific undertakings, whether it be a church or a manufacturing establishment?

I’m talking in terms of place and time. In other words, presumably you might permit certain noise levels within a certain limited period of time and define the place. Is that contemplated?

Hon. W. Newman: As far as municipalities are concerned, we want to allow a certain noise level. For instance, let’s use a gravel pit as an example. They must blast and crush within certain hours because of the noise factor. They will be allowed to do so tinder the municipal bylaws.

As far as church bells are concerned, using that for an example, I think they have certain rights now under certain legislation. I don’t know whether it’s the Environmental Protection Act, but they are considered as an entity that has always been there. You can’t really control church bells, unless they get excessively noisy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Is this provision to give the ministry the flexibility to permit this type of thing?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I’d like one thing made clear. I don’t think protection has anything to do with regulations, has it? What regulations of the Environmental Protection Act have anything to do with the municipal bylaw that is being proposed? I think this is just an amendment to the Act that’s thrown in with this bill, is it not?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, partially. It is to allow us to exclude those municipalities that already have bylaws that want to be excluded, and don’t want to use this particular section of the Act to enact their new bylaws.

Mr. Good: Am I correct in that it means that any regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act, whether they deal with air pollution, private sewage, litter or anything else, could now be written to exclude any municipality from the application of those regulations? Because what regulations will the minister be making under the Environmental Protection Act dealing with this model bylaw? This is what I’m still concerned with.

Hon. W. Newman: It is possible, I guess, under this section for us to exclude certain areas under the bylaws that may be passed by the municipality. We’d have the right to do that, if we felt something was not quite right.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2 carried?

Mr. Good: This opens up a whole new field here, in other words, the province is now saying to the municipalities: “You pass your bylaws, but we will reserve the right to say which municipality may pass bylaws and which may not, and which parts may be included and which parts may not” Is that right?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s right.

Mr. Good: This is what they’re doing. Also, the opening up of this little innocent-looking section allows the government to make the whole application of regulations under any section of the Environmental Protection Act applicable only in those areas where it so desires. Now, let’s come clean and tell us what it’s all about.

Hon. W. Newman: No, no. Basically, we’re talking about exemptions under this particular area -- exemptions from a new bylaw.

Mr. Good: It says exemptions of any regulation. Read section 95; this is what it used to say in subsection 1: “Any regulation may be general or particular in its application and may be limited as to time or place or both.” And now the government is adding that it “may exclude any place from the application of the regulation.” These are regulations relating to part VIII of the Act.

Hon. W. Newman: I have to rely on my legal people here, but this section is now in the Act and a change to the word “exclude” is to exclude areas that have bylaws under this Act. That’s all it means.

Mr. Chairman: Section 2 carried?

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Good: I am not clear on section 3, subsection 3, which says that “Part XXI 21 of the Municipal Act applies to bylaws passed under this section.” Now, the way I read part XXI of the Municipal Act is that it deals with penalties that may be imposed by bylaws passed by municipalities. I read that section of the Municipal Act as saying that $300 is the maximum fine that can be levied under a municipal bylaw. Now, am I wrong?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, you are. Under amendments in 1972, chapter 124, section 11, subsection 1, of section 466 of the said Act is amended by striking out $300 in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof, $1,000.

Mr. Good: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Section 3 carried? The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, just again. What is the weight to be given to the reservation power, that is the power reserved in your own hands and subject to your scrutiny and control, in 95(a): “The councils of local municipalities may, subject to the approval of the minister, pass by-laws, ... ”?

In other words you give with one hand and take away with the other. What are your nostrums? Why is that reserve clause shoved in there? What have you got in mind with respect to “subject to your approval”?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Lakeshore I would like to say that the whole purpose of putting this in here was not to restrict the municipalities in the passing of their bylaws, but to have some co-ordination where you may have three or four towns, together in an area, which want to pass bylaws and one municipality may pass a certain bylaw and another one may want to pass another bylaw. We want to have some co-ordination on these bylaws that are passed so that when you travel from municipality A to B, there would be some co-ordinating effort set up by the ministry.

But certainly it was not intended to use it as a lever or any other means, except just to keep some co-ordination within the municipal bylaws.

Mr. Lawlor: Another question on subsection 2 with respect to what lawyers call incorporation by reference in a statute. They may pass the bylaw and then in the course of that bylaw make a reference out to any code or standard. I suppose this is where you get your tie-in with your model code or Act, or whatever it will be when it finally sees the light of day, if it is not stillborn in the process, eh?

Mr. Good: Aborted.

Mr. Lawlor: But what good does that do individuals? What is the intention there? If you refer out to some other document, or some engineering institute’s standards of measurement, or something, is it the intention that that bylaw will nevertheless incorporate that code as such, so that it will be explicit, ready to hand, immediately available for anyone’s scrutiny as to what standards are being applied? To simply refer out like that may put any number of people to an infinity of difficulties trying to establish what the law in that municipality happens to be. What are your thoughts on that?

Hon. W. Newman: As to the bylaw that is passed by a municipality, certainly as far as we are concerned the model bylaw which will be sent out to the municipalities will be open for a great deal of discussion with the municipalities before any finalization is made. We would want to have our technical experts work with the municipality on setting up their bylaw.

Mr. Lawlor: So that it embodies all the terms and conditions and people know what the law is? Of course, you realize that subsection 2 has no necessary reference to any model bylaw, or code, or anything else? I mean, they may under that section make any reference they please to whatever they please in the civilized world, and I suppose parts of the primitive world as well. It is not confined.

Hon. W. Newman: May I say this: Part of the purpose of section 3(2) is to adopt scientific standards which may change from time to time as published by the ministry, or, for instance, the Canadian Standards Association.

Mr. Lawlor: You should really have a phrase in there if it is going to be efficacious. How do you know they won’t refer to Scientific American or something -- a back issue of some year? You should have a clause to suit standards, or scientific procedures, or what not, as approved by the ministry again, shouldn’t you?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s quite true, we say that up above “subject to ministerial approval.”

Mr. Chairman: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This particular clause does trouble me, because I have seen in the past where this type of thing has been included in a bylaw by reference, and certainly the material isn’t available with that bylaw for the public to scrutinize. Not only that, I think the comment of the member for --

Mr. Lawlor: Lakeshore.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- insofar as the fact is that it may be a code or reference applicable in any part of the world -- I would say civilized or otherwise; it could be adopted by reference. It could be American standards, or anybody else’s standards that we may not have here. Surely there should be something in the legislation which would dictate that the material to be adopted would be something specified in the regulations so that at least you could have a knowledge of what the municipalities intend to adopt -- because this is a very, very wide provision in any bylaw, and I don’t know what the ultimate result could be.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member that we realize that this is somewhat open here but, by the same token, it’s subject to ministerial approval. We wouldn’t allow anything to be included in there that was not within the framework of the Ministry of the Environment at present.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I appreciate the ministerial approval, but you get into a different argument when you’re talking about ministerial approvals than you do when you’re giving a municipality these broad powers. Because if you give a municipality the broad powers that are enunciated within the section, then you can’t turn to the municipality and say, “We don’t want you to exercise those powers” and then arbitrarily refuse to approve the bylaw.

If you reserve unto yourself the veto power in terms of approval which you’ve indicated is for purposes of uniformity in terms of these municipal bylaws, then I don’t think that provision should be used to restrict the powers that are given under the legislation to the municipalities. That power is a very wide power indeed -- a power that can give a municipality by reference the right to incorporate laws of other jurisdictions.

I have the concern in principle that we should give municipalities that power to exercise, through adoption or reference, laws that are in other lands. It goes that far, notwithstanding the fact that you do have a veto power in terms of exercising a ministerial discretion as to whether or not the bylaw, in fact, should be approved. I do think that it’s not a principle that should be enshrined in this legislation.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that we would not be approving any bylaw unless we were satisfied it came within the various codes of this province.

Mr. Lawlor: That is not the end of it however. I mean the fact is, why don’t you say so? Why doesn’t the clause read that they may incorporate by reference whatever portions of the submitted model bylaw that they find relevant to their particular needs, and not extend this to encompass all possible codes, ordinances, norms, standards with respect to noise pollution control which may exist anywhere in the universe? That’s not what you want. That’s not what you said you want.

If you give a municipality that power some bright engineer in some municipality just might know that Philadelphia has a particular decibel count and the way of governing it is quite quintessential, different from anybody else’s, “so let’s get that into our bylaw.” Sure it comes upstairs to you, but aren’t you creating unnecessary resentment then that you’re going to knock that out and say: “Oh no, we don’t want to make that reference out. What we meant is, here is our model bylaw and we meant you to adopt whatever portions of it you saw fit, rather than roam around and literature the subject almost indefinitely”?

The point made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox seems to me would ad idem on that particular thing. It’s cast too wide, unnecessarily for your own purposes. You are inviting unnecessary difficulties. You are inviting the municipalities to draw up their bylaw the way they see fit, and then you are going to strike out the clauses which you find you don’t quite like.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I would think the ministry would be put to considerable trouble and work in analyzing and reviewing the standards and criteria procedures that might emanate from other countries, whether it be the USSR or the Scandinavian countries or the USA. They would certainly have to review this material in order to know whether or not it is something that should be approved. Surely the criteria should be something that is from this jurisdiction, not from other jurisdictions.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, we would strongly recommend that the code and standards prepared or approved by the ministry be the ones adopted. I think another one of the important points is that the standard to be available to be read in Ontario be written in positive and forcible terms in Ontario.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Chairman, has the minister made it clear yet whether the model bylaw contains minimum standards that the municipalities are not to reduce?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, as far as the model bylaw is concerned the intention is to send the municipalities a full bylaw -- the ultimate bylaw, so to speak.

Mr. Burr: All right, the regulations --

Hon. W. Newman: Then they can work back with us, depending on the municipalities. You are asking are there some basic minimum requirements? We are not saying there are basic minimum requirements that they must have in their bylaw, but their bylaw would be hardly worth their while passing unless there are certain basic requirements in it, the basic requirements of some of the noise levels involved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore on section 4.

On section 4:

Mr. Lawlor: Section 4 has to do with the conflict between the Act on the one side and the enacting bylaws. The actual provisions of the Act are going to prevail over the bylaw. But then there is going to be an exception with respect to 95(a). In other words 95(a) when enacted as a bylaw by a municipality will be in effect and will be the governing law. If there should be a conflict between that and the statute itself, the Environment Protection Act, then the local bylaw will prevail. Is that what I am to understand?

Hon. W. Newman: I’m sorry, I think you have that in reverse.

Mr. Lawlor: In reverse?

Hon. W. Newman: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: I should know better, shouldn’t I? You are the big guns up there. They pass a little local bylaw and it goes through the travail. It’s like a Gatling gun of criticism. Inside the ministry you finally give your imprimatur. You throw a little baptismal water on the brows, so to speak. Out it goes, and it is in full fledge. Then you get the court to find that there’s a clause in the Environmental Protection Act inadvertently brought to this House by the minister some afternoon. Then the bylaw of the municipality has no worth and is out of court. It’s pretty hopeless stuff you’ve got here.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, of course, if there is a conflict then the Environmental Protection Act shall stand. This Act refers to any other Act, a private Act as well, that has been authorized by bylaws.

Mr. Lawlor: You give them something and then you really scuttle them.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4? The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Then, as you know and have expressed, there are many municipalities which have struggled under the provisions of the Municipal Act in terms of passing an anti-noise bylaw. They have paraded now and then to the Legislature for special legislation validating their municipal bylaws. Are you saying now that this legislation will adversely affect those bylaws that have been validated by an Act of this Legislature?

Hon. W. Newman: No, what I’m saying is that it continues in force any legislation or bylaws that have been passed now under the Municipal Act or private Acts. It does not stop them from passing a bylaw under this legislation, which in many cases might give a little more power to enforce their legislation. But anything that is in force now under the Municipal Act or a private bill remains in force.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I would surmise that if the municipalities had had this legislation, in many cases they would not have had to come to the Legislature for special legislation validating their bylaws.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s correct.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think that’s a great thing. That’s why we are all supporting this legislation, with the exception, I suppose, of some of the more retrograde members.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): What do you mean? You always called us radicals.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Well, reactionary radicals, I should say.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, I see.

Mr. Young: That’s a new phrase.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In any event, what did concern me was the comment of the minister --

Mr. Lawlor: I thought for a few moments we knew where we stood in this legislation.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- that the provisions of this Act would prevail as in other legislation; that is, where there is any conflict between the provisions of this Act and any other private or public Act, the provisions of this Act prevail. I presume that still is the overriding principle in this bill, which is taken care of in section 4. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, that’s correct.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 190 reported.

Mr. Lawlor: Quoth the raven, “never more.”

Hon. W. Newman moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1974.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill deals with amendments to the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, passed last year, which repealed all the other unconditional grants Acts and amendments before it.

On first looking at this bill, I thought that there should have been a little better explanation as to the purpose of these amounts. For instance, a very large sum of money -- $173,000 -- is going to the regional municipality of Sudbury, and $57,000 is going to the town of Kenora.

I presume the Kenora money relates to the police costs that were required in the unpleasantness they had up there last summer when the Indian group took over the park. I think there were hints there would be provincial money coming to help with that particular cost.

The grant to the region of Sudbury, through the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, was a little unusual to me at first glance. I wondered what authority could be had for that, but I noticed there is a clause in section 3 of the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act which allows grants made under that section to be made to other municipalities, including a metropolitan or regional municipality, where the grant being made by the minister, at his own discretion, is as a result of a change in legislation or an unforeseen commitment imposed on a municipality, such as the imposition of regional government requiring additional sums of money. I understand this particular grant to Sudbury is in relation to their official plan.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in my view the whole matter of grants to the new regional governments, has been very badly handled. One particular region gets so much, while the next region, if it hollers a little louder and has a few more needs, gets another amount. And we have provisions in the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act and the Regional Municipal Grants Act which allow a great deal of ministerial discretion and leeway to apply and provide whatever sums of money he or she sees fit to tide them over that particular purpose.

We have here, I suppose, somewhat of a duplication of what happened in the last election year when the then Minister of Municipal Affairs took his $1.5 million and trotted off to the various regions around the province to quell the uprising in the Niagara region, give another $500,000 to York and another $250,000 to Muskoka, so that the people would settle down and not have so many financial worries in an election year -- especially those people in the regions.

We in Waterloo took a real shafting on our start-up grants. We had only 24 per cent of the proposed $1.8 million required for start-up costs. And why our name isn’t in this list of grants, I don’t know, but it seems that the start-up grants that are paid to the regions depend on the amount of money available, I suppose, and on the whims of the Treasurer at the time as to how much you are going to get.

I think that there should be a pretty fair explanation coming forth here as to why the regional municipality of Sudbury is getting $173,000 for planning studies to help towards the official plan -- and remember, every regional bill we have ever passed requires that a regional official plan be created within the next three-year period. I don’t see anything there.

However, there is in this bill grants to small municipalities -- Wiarton, Amabel township, Habermehl and Lion’s Head up in Bruce county. There is no designation as to what these are for -- planning studies or extra costs for child welfare. The explanatory note says that is what they are for, but it would be interesting if the parliamentary assistant could give us a little bit of detail as to why these amounts were required, how much was asked for, how these amounts were decided upon and just what the basis is.

When the government starts handing out money in a discretionary manner to various municipalities across the province without proper explanation being given, one starts to think in some pretty strong terms as to what the reasoning behind it could he. I hope the minister’s parliamentary assistant has some knowledge of this and will tell us what these grants are used for.

I think the municipalities certainly need additional sums, but we can’t just apply them holus-bolus, wherever the need arises, at the discretion of the minister. I don’t think this ministerial discretion in grants is good. I think it should be done on a formula basis, and there should be public knowledge and explanation given of why these municipalities require it.

Now, of all these municipalities listed here, I gathered what the Kenora grant was for; I asked what the Sudbury grant was for; but there is no way one could ascertain what the other moneys were to be provided for.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I just want to back up what has already been said. The reason this bill has to be brought forward is because at the time of the setting up regional governments, this Legislature refused to undergird the municipalities with the proper financial base. It’s just as simple as that.

As the member for Waterloo North has said, from time to time we have indulged in ad hockery in paying this bill and that bill, and granting something here and something there for projects that have had to be undertaken. If we had done what should have been done in the beginning, these amounts would have been met out of the adequate revenue of the regional governments concerned.

This side of the House did outline to the government at the time the early regional governments were set up what we called the municipal foundation plan. Lest you fear, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to outline it here this afternoon; it’s already on record -- several times, as a matter of fact. I am not going to try to outline it, but it did provide for the kind of fiscal autonomy that municipalities of this kind need and eventually must have. Certainly the various ministers over there who have been responsible for municipal government since that time have been nibbling at the plan a bit.

It was adopted in large measure as far as the Minister of Education is concerned, but so far we haven’t been willing to face up to the fact that when we establish municipal governments we also must undergird them with a financial base which will allow them to meet their obligations without having to run to the provincial government at regular intervals for this grant and that grant to undertake the kind of things which are not only necessary but which are demanded by the senior level of government.

So, while we are not going to oppose this bill and we will vote for it because I think these amounts are needed by the municipalities concerned and they should have been there long ago, we simply want to register our protest that this government is bungling financially in setting up the regional governments. I hope that they learn from experience and in the future when new regional governments are set up, whether it’s that government or another government, we will face this responsibility clearly and we will provide the financial base that regional governments ought to have.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this? The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The grants are set out here in two columns, one for the year 1975, the other one for next year, 1976. That in itself is interesting. There is no explanation vouchsafed to this body as to what any of the sums mean. We are told in the frontispiece that there are three distinct and separate areas to which these grants may be allocated, and I suppose any one grant may have three sorts of division written into it.

Let’s say the town of Sioux Lookout -- $14,850 -- might have all three written in. The first area has to do with special planning staffs and the second area has to do with liabilities that are incurred under the Child Welfare Act. I would like to hear a little bit more about those liabilities, what precisely they are, or if they are different in different localities what are the differences?

Finally, I refer to the town of Kenora situation involving the Indians in the park, and the poor handling and the disgruntlement within the Ministry of Social and Family Services fighting the Attorney General’s department quietly, inside that bubble over there, as to how that whole thing should be managed. In any event, they are now asking for $57,000 to remedy these expenses.

What I would like to have and I think what this party would like to have -- and we will be asking for it in committee of the whole House -- is a breakdown, individually and collectively, of all these figures, as to what money is to be given to whom for what in the various areas; and in this principle reading I would like a justification with respect to both the Kenora situation and the Child Welfare Act.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this? The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend the action of the government insofar as transferring these funds to the local municipalities. I don’t know whether this bill will be going to committee of the whole House or not --

An hon. member: It will.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but if it is, then I could probably ask my questions there. I’m particularly concerned as to whether there may be some typographical error. I notice that Prince Edward county is not mentioned in here --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, I see.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- after spending considerable moneys which parallel the expenditures of the county of Hastings. I have exerted my weight in that application and I was just wondering if there was some omission.

Mr. Lawlor: There you are, you see? They don’t pay any attention to the member.

An hon. member: Exerted his weight?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, the full force of my weight.

Mr. Lawlor: They pay less attention to him than they do to the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent).

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that in all fairness it would have been advisable for the minister to get up and state the reason for these funds.

I am well aware of the need for funds by the town of Kenora, having specifically to do with the problem in Anicinabe Park last year. It is unfortunate that a situation should have arisen whereby it was necessary to involve the police forces in such large numbers as to have incurred an extraordinary expenditure in the neighbourhood of $57,000. It was a situation I don’t think had anything to do with any initiatives taken locally by the town council or any small group of people within the town of Kenora. It was a situation that had degenerated over a long period of time, due to a misunderstanding between the native groups involved and the handling and administration of land by the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.

While we realize that we have to come to the assistance of communities which find themselves in such situations, I find it rather interesting to find that the town of Sioux Lookout got financing to the extent of $14,850. I think it would have expedited matters if the member had got up and explained the reason for this transfer of funds. If we agreed with it in principle, we could have stated so, but we’re not in a position to say whether we agree or disagree until we find out the reason for the --

Mr. Good: We’re trying to teach them that.

Mr. Stokes: -- extra grants and whether or not, in our opinion as members coming from the north, they were justified. So it’s not possible for me at this time to state whether or not I’m in agreement or disagreement with them.

In the case of Sioux Lookout, I would like some clarification as to the nature of those funds, how they were expended and why it was necessary to give an unconditional grant in that amount. I would like that kind of information from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members to speak to this? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to answer some of the questions raised by the various members, and to deal first of all with the questions of the hon. member for Waterloo North who questioned the amount to, the regional municipality of Sudbury, this is a two-year programme for an official plan -- $100,000 in 1974 and $73,000 in 1975. This is an agreement; this is the 50 per cent share.

With regard to the questions about Kenora and the amount of $57,000; $21,000 is for an agreement for the official plan, and $36,000 is the reimbursement of municipal costs.

An hon. member: What kind of municipal costs?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Is that for the policing last summer in Anicinabe Park?

Mr. Beckett: I would hope to be able to answer that a little more fully, in reply to the hon. member for --

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Why not go through them all and say what they are?

Mr. Beckett: I’m going to go through them all now.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay.

Mr. Beckett: The next question was regarding the Children’s Aid Society. The last two items -- improvement district of Beardmore for $4,969 and the county of Prescott and Russell $1,058 -- those were to the Children’s Aid Society for unexpected expenditures in operation of the Children’s Aid Society facilities in those areas.

Another question was in reference to regional governments and insufficiency of the grants. These are not start-up grants in any way, shape or form. These are grants for official plans.

With regard to Sudbury, this is a four-year commitment for assistance to the official plan. The municipality will be paying 50 per cent of the cost, and this is the province’s share.

The member for Yorkview, I think, asked questions similar to those of the member for Waterloo North; the member for Lakeshore wanted a breakdown with regard to Kenora. I mentioned previously the $21,000 and $36,000. A question was asked as to what these municipal costs are: Police and public works overtime, $26,000; materials for repairs, $1,300; miscellaneous, including meals, $5,692; estimate for repainting buildings, $3,000; for a total of $36,338.27.

The member for Prince Edward Island -- Prince Edward-Lennox, rather -- asked about the question of the moneys --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Moved, eh?

Mr. Stokes: He just seems far away, seems kind of detached; Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Beckett: Prince Edward-Lennox, I apologize.

That is strictly for an official plan for the area of his neighbour that he was inquiring about.

The member for Thunder Bay was asking about the costs; I think I have covered those with a breakdown. I would be pleased to try and answer anything further on that.

With regard to Sioux Lookout, the $14,000 is strictly the cost for the official plan, the 50 per cent from the province.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been general practice that the region has to be the body responsible for the creation and adoption of official plans, and I presume there must have been some ambiguity in the Muskoka Act in that the area governments wanted to have a hand in the official plan.

Unfortunately, in a two-tier system it has been my observation that a considerable amount of tension exists between the top tier and the lower tier government when it comes to the planning concepts. The region, of course, has the authority and the power, but everything they do does affect the local level very considerably. This, I presume, is to clarify the fact that while the area government still has certain powers under the Planning Act, the official plan has got to be a product of the region; but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it should be a plan with which the area governments can live and into which they will have some input.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this bill. I presume that while the responsibility for planning is ultimately vested in the regional government the area governments would also have some input and that they make suggestions and perform other functions in detail. If that is the case then I think we’d support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. members wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, the questions raised by the members for Waterloo North and Yorkview are both right on. This has been requested by the district. The areas will have the ability to make sure they have their full input into the district -- not the region, because this is known as a district.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading.

Agreed.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

Mr. Beckett on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 194, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a great opportunity, once again, to bring before a member of government -- and I’m sorry there are no cabinet ministers here -- the problem which has existed since the first regional government was established in this province, namely that no one seems to know quite what to do with existing public utilities commissions. This bill allows the trustees of the police villages in the county of Oxford, or the region of Oxford which it actually is, to continue in their capacity as public utilities officers and commissioners to run the Hydro operation.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): They didn’t know they could, possibly?

Mr. Good: Every bill that has been brought before this Legislature has sidestepped the issue as to what’s going to happen to public utilities commissioners and who is going to run hydro. They all usually state that the existing commissioners will continue to operate until such time as the minister designates, with the result that in some municipalities -- in fact in all municipalities -- there have been no elections for public utilities commissioners. They will not allow the public utilities commissioners of any particular area or village to take in the customers which were given to them on the new boundaries that were created; in this case the county of Oxford, or the region. The same problem has existed ever since the first regional governments came in.

The situation is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, that the Waterloo region bill allows the former mayors to still retain their seats on the public utilities commission, although two of them were defeated in the last election.

It’s almost unbelievable that this problem hasn’t been tackled. It has been studied. There having been task forces. They’ve been reporting to the now Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), the former Minister of Energy. Everybody wants to do something about it, but nobody has done anything up until now.

Once again, we have to have amendments to the Oxford bill now so that there is someone to carry on the hydro. What’s going to happen to the public utilities commissions?

Are they going to be operating on an area government basis, a regional or a county basis in this particular Oxford situation? Why doesn’t somebody grapple with this problem and come up with a solution and stop having to have all these amendments brought in on every bill, every year? It’s stupid.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is an interim measure in any case. We have to bring some order into this kind of a situation. It’s too bad we have to deal with these things, as the previous speaker has said, in this particular piecemeal fashion. Since the problem is there and this may carry it over for a period of time until we get better regional organization, all right, we’ll go along with it.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments on this? The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have one brief comment, Mr. Speaker, and that is to note that in this situation we had dealt with three of the police villages within the county of Oxford in amendments before Christmas. It would appear that suddenly people in the ministry found out that in fact there were three other police villages that had gone astray. One would have thought that any county or region would know the number of municipalities that were in it and might have brought this to someone’s attention earlier.

Mr. Good: How come the government didn’t notice that?

Mr. Breithaupt: However, I suppose we’re only correcting a situation that, hopefully, was inadvertent. We have, however, found three more police villages and I’m sure they’re all quite pleased to be brought into this statute.

As my colleague from Waterloo North has said, we are under a particularly interesting situation in Waterloo region where three former mayors of Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge remain on hydro commissions because the cabinet and the minister in charge have not grappled with this whole problem of the approach that should be taken as to whether these commissions should be elected; whether they should form part of regional government at a lower or upper tier, or whether in fact they should simply continue at the sufferance of the minister.

I was pleased at the response that the Premier (Mr. Davis) made to a question which I asked last week when he said we would be seeing some new guidelines, because in the constituency which he represents there are problems in this exact same circumstance as a result of regional government.

We are sorry this approach has to continue and we do hope the ministry will come to grips with this problem in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments before the hon. parliamentary assistant replies? The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo North raised some very interesting questions, and I think the hon. members for Yorkview and Kitchener did as well.

I think the simplest way I can explain this is that these are three more police villages that were not included in the original legislation. The policy that they are referring to, or the lack of policy, I believe is the subject of a study now. There is a committee under the Ministry of Energy which has been working on this, and I believe there is a policy decision that will be coming before long.

But as far as this particular situation here is concerned, it is my understanding that we can thank the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) for bringing to our attention that there were three police villages ignored in the previous legislation.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister, or his assistant, is it his plan to leave police villages in the region?

Mr. Good: Just for hydro purposes.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, for hydro purposes only.

Mr. Young: Won’t the ministry phase eventually them out?

Mr. Beckett: Yes.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 193, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Bill 194, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Meen, moves third reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Just one word. I will preserve the minister from further harm and just say we spent a lot of time in committee on this particular bill, it became infinitely intricate, and the new sections that were added on the last day would knock your left eye out. I’ll let it go at that.

THIRD READINGS (CONCLUDED)

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Bill 176, An Act to provide for Conservation, Protection and Preservation of the Heritage of Ontario.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, House in committee of the whole.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.