Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in a statement to this House yesterday, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) reviewed our experience in health cost-sharing with the federal government.

I would like to assure the members that the changes proposed by the federal Minister of Finance were completely unexpected. We must act to ensure that Ontario and the other provinces are able to continue to look after the health of our people and respond to our own priorities in doing so.

The proposed changes carry grave implications for taxpayers in Ontario. Already, health care costs account for 28 per cent of the total provincial budget. I do not see how we can afford to exceed that percentage, yet at the same time I must make it clear that our own projected estimate of the barest essential increases in health care costs go considerably beyond the arbitrarily restricted increases proposed by Ottawa.

There is no easy solution open to us by looking for lower-cost alternative modes of health care, for one simple reason. Ontario has already been leading the way in Canada in finding and developing these lower-cost innovations --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Like what?

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- but there are limits to how much can be saved by this approach.

Accordingly, I feel it is now my responsibility, and that of the other provincial Ministers of Health, to argue against these damaging proposals on behalf of the taxpayers of our respective provinces.

For that reason, I have dispatched telegrams to the other nine Health ministers suggesting that we meet at the earliest possible date, and at any mutually acceptable location, to discuss in depth the implications and ramifications of these proposed changes. And I sincerely hope that our meeting, will lead to a solution that proves suitable and acceptable to all concerned.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House of the policy directive to Ontario Hydro implicit in yesterday’s supplementary budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Is the minister reminding the chairman of Hydro too?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I expect a 10 per cent cut in administrative expense to match our own initiative. A minimum of $1 billion must be shaved from .the capital budget to 1985. I have met today with, the chairman of Ontario Hydro and thoroughly discussed the implications of our new initiatives, and I can report that despite headlines in today’s papers, Hydro understands our objectives and has already begun to do something to achieve them.

Yesterday, the Ontario Hydro board instructed management to review again the level of its costs, with a view to meeting the government’s latest expectations for costs in Hydro’s budget. I say “again”, sir, because you may recall that the board took similar action prior to the submission of the Hydro rate proposal now before the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Taylor reminded me this morning that a thorough review of capital expenditures had been ordered by the board on June 16 when new data had become available on load forecasts. This report will deal with alternatives for cutting the long-range investment programme. This could mean stretching out for two or three years the completion schedule on one or more of the four major generating stations planned to 1985. We must recognize that this means narrowing the reserve margin which we have been used to. Nevertheless, our objective to reduce expenditures may require the acceptance of higher risks and less reliable service.

Finally, the chairman of Hydro has directed that, effective today, all hiring will be suspended for 60 days. This will allow time for Hydro to review all of its programmes and costs without making further commitments.

Mr. Speaker, these initiatives taken by Hydro clearly reflect, in my view, that Hydro intends and is able to meet our latest policy objectives.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The minister should have done this in April.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The alternative means of achieving these ends will be described in reports to be submitted by the beginning of August to the OEB. These new data will be taken into consideration by the board in recommending bulk power rates for 1976. We are confident that the results will be a smaller increase in rates than we might otherwise have had to accept.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well, that was predictable.

NORONTAIR SERVICES

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, on May 15 it was my privilege to announce in the House the inauguration of norOntair service in northwestern Ontario and the July start of services in north-central Ontario.

I would now like to advise the House that this fall we plan to add Elliot Lake to the present northeastern Ontario services which link Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Chapleau, Kapuskasing, Kirkland Lake, Earlton and North Bay.

It is intended to inaugurate the new service to Elliot Lake to coincide with the semi-annual fall change-over in the major airlines’ flight timetables. The start of service is also dependent, however, on the completion of necessary improvements to the airport at Elliot Lake. The town and my ministry have already reached an agreement for the necessary improvements under the provincial airport development programme, and work on the project is already under way.

Approval for the new service is also required from the Canadian Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport.

The norOntair flights into Elliot Lake will be part of the service pattern between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and connect with Air Canada and Transair in both cities. The service to Elliot Lake will be part of the service operated for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission by Bradley Air Services Ltd.

With the successful inauguration of the service in northwestern Ontario on April 27 and the planned start of service in north-central Ontario on July 17, we can be justifiably proud of our programme to provide air service in northern Ontario.

In just four years, it has grown from the initial service to four communities in northeastern Ontario to a widely used and well-respected service, providing air links between 17 communities across northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, further to his statement, did he discuss with the chairman of Hydro the quotes attributed to him, as follows, from the Toronto Star: “Ontario Hydro will look at an austerity programme the province wants it to adopt, but it would be silly to promise anything now;” and from the Globe and Mail: “Ontario Hydro’s request for an increase of 30 per cent in hydro rates will not be altered by the Ontario government’s request that it trim capital spending”? May I ask the minister if he instructed the chairman of Hydro that it was government policy which must be followed, not only to reduce their direct expenditure but also to reduce their request to the Ontario Energy Board, since their capital requirements must be cut down by $1 billion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t discuss all of the quotes -- in fact, I didn’t see the Toronto Star until after the chairman had left my office -- but I don’t believe, in fact, that the second sentence or sentences that the member read out were, in fact, attributed to the chairman. I think perhaps those were editorial comments of the reporter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was a report.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But let me say again, what I did this morning was to clarify with the chairman the government’s policy. I think that the headlines in today’s press were most unfortunate. They did not, in fact, accurately reflect what the chairman had said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps not what he wishes he had said.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The chairman understands the government’s policy and I have indicated the --

Mr. Lewis: The chairman doesn’t understand it at all. They are all the same, those corporate chairmen of the minister’s; they have no interest in government. From Gathercole to Taylor, they are of the same cloth, both of them. I am tired of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think if there is a lack of understanding --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am replying to the Leader of the Opposition, not to the babbling from his left.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not left.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: His extreme left. Hydro understands clearly that this is government policy, that the costs must be reduced by 10 per cent, that the capital budget must be reduced a minimum of $1 billion.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Does the minister believe that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As far as the question of, does he say right now where it’s going to be, I can understand that. They are conducting these studies and when these studies are completed, they will indicate how they will meet the government policies.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister guarantee to the House that the submission by Ontario Hydro to the Ontario Energy Board will be reduced consonant with the direction from the government that their capital expansion must be cut by a clear $1 billion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, when the staff of the Hydro board has completed the studies and these studies have been considered by the Hydro board itself, it will then file this material with the Energy Board. I anticipate this to be at the beginning of August and I anticipate that the result of the Energy Board’s hearings will be lower rates than previously anticipated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, if I may just ask one more: Did the minister instruct the chairman of Hydro that unless the policy statements of the budget were followed he would have to be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there was no need to be as silly as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would suggest --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Silly? Who is running Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The Leader of the Opposition has to hang on to his straw. Hang on to it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the position of the chairman of Ontario Hydro is clear.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Yes, he understands the Treasurer is playing the game too.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The government has laid down the policy. The chairman understands that policy. The chairman understands that Hydro must live within those policies, and he will.

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

Mr. Lewis: For the last year, until yesterday and today, is it not true that the government has always argued that it will make no such instruction to Hydro until the Ontario Energy Board has reviewed their requests and submitted recommendations to the government?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) said so.

Mr. Lewis: And since the government has now fundamentally altered its policy toward Hydro so that it is dictating to them in advance, both in terms of operating and capital budget, its expectations as a government, why then does the government simply say to them, shave only $1 billion off? Why don’t they establish an appropriate growth rate rather than plucking a figure from the air -- a growth rate which is in the interests of the Province of Ontario and one which will reduce the rates that are charged?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the question of growth rates is never plucked from the air, as the member says.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly isn’t; where did the $1 billion come from?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is a group of very qualified people in Hydro whose job it is to take all things into account, growth in various parts of the province, in the various sectors of the province, and various other factors, including recessions here and elsewhere, to project their needs each year and in longer terms. What I have indicated in the past is that these are very difficult things to arrive at. No. 2, they were examined by the Energy Board last year and they commended Hydro for the way in which they go about making their projections. Revised projections were filed with the board on the 9th or the 16th -- I believe it was June 9 -- based on more current data. I don’t think that in any way we are changing from what we said in the past.

Mr. Lewis: Of course the government is. It is telling them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have that revised data. We also have the tremendously serious impact of the federal budget on Ontario and all parts of the government and agencies of the government must be part of the response. Hydro can be no exception.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister mean he needs an issue?

Mr. Renwick: He can’t get away with that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: It is threadbare. That argument won’t stand up any more.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary to his supplementaries.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a supplementary.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): How many supplementaries does he get? Seven or eight?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Lewis: I asked one.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The NDP leader is losing his image.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll follow the member for Downsview if you want to do it in rotation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister tell us if he now knows how much of an increase Hydro is going to be asking the Energy Board for and whether or not he has given instructions to Mr. Rogers, who apparently is government counsel, as to what his attitude should be before the Energy Board? Two questions: The amount and what are Rogers’ instructions.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, since the original application was filed with me, there has been the change in the load forecast; there has been the change in Hydro’s expectations of revenue from export sales; and now there is the clear directive from government. All of this will be taken into account by the Energy Board. They already have the reports on the first two; they will have the reports from Ontario Hydro in early August on the latter points of capital expenditures and all of their other expenditures and they will then make their comments and recommendations as to what is an appropriate figure.

Mr. Singer: How much time is the minister asking for?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that will be up to the board to determine what is an appropriate figure. Without redrawing the whole thing, the original request stands but obviously it has been changed by all of these other factors and the Ontario Energy Board will take all of this into consideration in making their recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is in for a shock.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister explain to us first where he got the billion dollar figure from? Can he tell us exactly the economic analysis which brings him to the conclusion of $1 billion. Second, if I may ask, why doesn’t the Ontario government intervene at the board hearings to put forward the position which we see on the growth rate as opposed to that of Hydro? Finally, does the minister really think that chairman Taylor has come around when he said that next year there would have to be a 25 per cent increase and the following year a 20 per cent rate increase? Does the minister call that coming around or is that still a collision course with Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to take the last part first, I think the member is drawing from statements made in the very early stages -- late April.

Mr. Lewis: No, it’s in the papers today.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I saw it in the paper but I think it’s just a rehash of what he said at the end of April on the original request.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the stance of Hydro which he says he will not change.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have forgotten the rest of the member’s question.

Mr. Lewis: Where did the billion come from?

Mr. Martel: What is a billion?

Mr. Renwick: They plucked it out of the air.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This figure was drawn by the Treasury and the Ministry of Energy looking at the long-term borrowing needs of the province and looking at the costs of borrowing as an appropriate figure for a minimum to be reduced.

Mr. Lewis: Did the minister just pick it out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, it will be the long term position of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO HYDRO BUILDING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the Minister of Energy. In his discussions with the chairman of Hydro, did he indicate to the chairman that because of the new stance of cutting costs and making economies, both in the government and in Ontario Hydro, they should consider taking that new edifice built by Mr. Moog -- which I understand is called “Place Patronage” -- and renting that out, since it is the most prestigious office space in Toronto, to the private sector so that at least the government can cut its costs by some moderate degree?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): That’s not going to do the Liberal leader any good. He is down.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: Would the minister not agree that that building -- that $44 million building built without a tender -- is an example of the bad administrative decisions made by Ontario Hydro which have contributed to a substantial degree to the amount of money Hydro says it now requires?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

COST-SHARING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment, in relation to the statement on policy made by the Treasurer, how can he account for his statement that Ontario and Canada have agreed to a cost-sharing programme involving a network of 414 hydrometric stations in the Province of Ontario? Is he not afraid that by being involved in this sort of a shared-cost programme he is committing the province to a programme that has been revoked by the policy statement of the Treasurer yesterday?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) signed this agreement some time ago and that is what he is in Ottawa about today. I signed it some two weeks ago. It’s really not a cost-sharing programme in this respect that, for instance, on the water quantity studies that we are doing, in cases where the federal people have water quantity studies going, we will pay them to operate our station because it is more economical that way. In cases where we might be operating their stations for them, they will pay us. And this is all it is. This memorandum of agreement was set up on April 22, 1975.

WELLINGTON HOTEL FIRE INSPECTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), if he can assure us that the procedure which was undertaken for the fire inspection of the Wellington Hotel in Guelph, where fire resulted in the tragic deaths of two people, did not come under the responsibility of the Liquor Licence Board but was clearly in the hands of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, so that the confusion which may have led to some of the tragedy in a previous hotel fire in Paris, Ont., cannot be laid to the responsibility of this ministry or any other?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion whatsoever.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The coroner’s report said there was.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It has been said several times that the fire marshal does not inspect licensed premises. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, acting as the agents of the fire marshal, conducts these inspections.

I have a preliminary report on the status of that hotel as of this morning. I am advised that an inspection was conducted. It was conducted in April of this year. The hotel passed all of the requirements. There was one minor work order which they had until September, 1976, to carry out. They had complied with all the requirements of the inspectors. There is in the wings right now, a move to make the fire marshal responsible for all fire inspections in the province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was in the wings a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It wasn’t, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect. We have been discussing it since the Paris incident, since we received the coroner’s report. It’s a question of transfer of resources. The hon. member is quite aware of the fact that there has been an acting Solicitor General. Hopefully, tomorrow morning the former Solicitor General will be back in his portfolio and he’ll be able to pick that up and carry right through with it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary. I hope the minister understands how serious this situation is. Is he trying to justify the fact that the confusion in fire inspection which remains in this province is as a result of the fact that we have had an acting Solicitor General instead of a full-time one? Is he not aware of the fact that the fire that took place in Paris, Ont. -- and I don’t remember the date, but it was many months ago -- brought to public attention the fact that fire inspection under the responsibility of the Liquor Licence Board of this province was inadequate, and that according to the coroner’s hearing -- the inquest itself -- the confusion that resulted from the inspection and the fact that no one required the findings and the inadequacies of the inspection to be followed up may have resulted in the deaths of five people, and that nothing has been done to clear this up?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I just don’t admit for a moment there is any confusion. The coroner’s report did not indicate that there was any confusion. It did indicate that there was some lack of information being conveyed to the owners of the hotel and a lack of enforcement on the part of the inspectors, but there was no confusion and there is no confusion now. The Guelph hotel was inspected in the proper way, in the routine way, and it met all the requirements of the inspection.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister recall responding to me when we were discussing the new Liquor Licence Act that the inspection was now clearly established with an agency which had the power to follow up and require the improvement in the circumstances that might have resulted from any shortfall in the safety features as the result of the inspection?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to rehash the Liquor Licence Act, which has not yet been proclaimed because there are no regulations under it, would remove the Liquor Licence Board from the job and from the responsibility of fire inspection of licensed premises. That’s all it would do.

At no time did I ever say, nor am I saying now, that there has been any confusion in the past as to the responsibility of the Liquor Licence Board in acting as agents of the fire marshal for fire inspection. They have that responsibility, they have been carrying it out and they will carry it out until the new Act goes into effect.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit one more supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that since the tragic fire in Paris, which must be more than a year ago, there have been fires in Cambridge, in Brockville and now the fatal one in Guelph, either last night or the night before -- within the last day -- and that one of the important matters brought forward, certainly in the one in Paris, was that the Liquor Licence Board should have no responsibility for fire inspection and that it should be transferred to those who have not only the responsibility but the power to enforce its fulfilment?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware of that recommendation and, as I told the hon. member, when the coroner’s report was received, we are acting on it. On the other hand --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was a year ago.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): More people have died since.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The suggestion that the inspectors do not have any power to enforce their findings is simply without foundation. They do have the power of the fire marshal. They act as agents of the fire marshal in doing it. I quite agree that I would prefer, as the minister who reports for the Liquor Licence Board, to have fire inspection under the fire marshal. At the present time that’s not possible and the government is moving as quickly as possible to achieve that move.

Mr. Deacon: Is a year as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health in light of his statement of today. Is it not a fact that there is a Health Ministers’ conference scheduled for September next in Victoria and, since it’s pretty close by, is that not an appropriate time for the whole debate on cost-sharing and the federal government’s initiatives to take place?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, under our normal procedure it would be the proper time to talk about these matters.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But in an election year, the minister wants to move it up a bit.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I am going to move it up because of the urgency of this matter and because I think the federal government is stopping to think a bit about it.

The hon. member’s party, at its conference in Winnipeg last week, clearly stood up and said the time had come to prevent this retrogressive step.

Mr. Lewis: And in September the time will come.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is not time enough --

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- because I hope between now and then the Premiers of the provinces will get together. If the Premiers of the provinces are going to get together with the Prime Minister of Canada to discuss certain matters, surely this one issue should have had some exploratory discussions amongst the Ministers of Health, because in my opinion no one financial issue bears more heavily upon the provinces than this.

For this reason I feel we can get together and look at the ramifications of this matter, and perhaps come together, as we did before, either unanimously or by consensus, with a plan that will suit us and present it to Ottawa, hoping that the federal Health minister just may not have been consulted by the federal Finance minister in his rather rash statement.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, would the minister care to comment on this? I chatted with the Ministers of Health of British Columbia and Saskatchewan while in Winnipeg, who had the feeling which they felt would be shared by the Ministers of Health of Manitoba and Quebec, that September was soon enough, that they wanted to prepare the material, that the federal axe wasn’t yet falling, and that they were not prepared to come to a conference called by this minister to serve his: sordid political motives --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: -- rather than what was already scheduled and which they believe is in good time. Has the minister had an answer to his telegrams yet?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What about the hon. member’s sordid political motives?

Mr. Lewis: I am very ambivalent about both of them. I dislike them today; I dislike them tomorrow. Tomorrow comes today -- one never knows.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I bet the hon. member even hates himself.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am going to take my engagement ring off and throw it away.

Mr. Martel: Even Hydro doesn’t believe the government.

Mr. Lewis: It is not going to happen; they laugh at the minister’s request.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t think they should laugh at me. They can’t stand up at their NDP conference in Winnipeg and state that it’s an urgent matter and at the same time sit back and say they won’t co-operate with us in what is an urgent matter.

Mr. Lewis: They aren’t. They have plenty of time to do it. Isn’t it enough the minister has John Turner on his side?

Hon. Mr. Miller: If they don’t want to come to the bargaining table, let the onus be on their heads.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: There is nobody to bargain with.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing, if I may. First, can he indicate to us the number of starts which the additional federal money, representing $65 million or $70 million of the $200 million, will represent to the Province of Ontario this calendar year and next fiscal year, assuming it is all channelled -- as I gather it will be -- through the limited dividend and other direct federal programmes? I take it that’s why it wasn’t in the budget. Can the minister tell us how many starts are expected from that avenue?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would estimate around 2,500 or 3,000 starts if we do get $60 million as the member said.

Mr. Lewis: All right. If that is what is represented by the federal government money and given the minister’s projections of yesterday, does he recognize that in the first six months of this calendar year the decline in starts was 36 per cent with an estimated object, therefore, on projection, of 54,400 starts by the end of this year which might rise to 65,000 given the minister’s initiatives but will still be 10,000 less than predicted in yesterday’s budget statement? As an additional supplementary, does he realize that on the fiscal year the decline in starts is 22 per cent so far, making an approximate target of 58,000 more likely than the 90,000? Why does he continue to use figures which he knows are illusory and wrong?

Mr. Deans: And misleading.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, those figures are not indicative of what will happen in the final months of this year.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what the minister always says -- why not?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what he always says.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not in the least. I think the member has to realize -- I have said it many times in this House -- the figures for January, February and March didn’t indicate what was going to happen in May or June and they didn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, June went down 32 per cent over last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We don’t know what June has in relation to July or August in starts.

Mr. Lewis: It could get worse.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It could be worse or it could be better.

Mr. Deans: Chances are it would be worse.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One thing we have to realize is that it has finally sunk in in Ottawa -- at least to Mr. Danson’s credit he has admitted it -- and the federal government now realizes that what we said at the first of the year was exactly correct -- their budgeting was not adequate for the number of starts they were saying would happen in Ontario and in Canada and he has finally recognized that when the season is half over.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: Does the minister realize that 57,000 is exactly what I predicted?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the budget in effect admits that Ontario’s housing start volume this year will be the worst in a decade or very close to it. Is the minister trying to tell us that January, February and March, 1976, in the depths of winter, is when some of the housing problem is going to be overcome?

Mr. Lewis: His figures are bogus.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t that January, February and March, 1970, will overcome that shortfall we have at the present time. I don’t say that at all. I am saying that the months ahead will prove how many starts we will have for the total year. I think we have to take into consideration that we have not had a good understanding with the federal government, with the municipalities, with the financial lending institutions --

Mr. Martel: It’s in a mess.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- or with everyone with general. Everyone has been concerned about the economy and that’s why the starts are down. I said yesterday that the private sector has to supply the majority of the starts. I say that again today; they have to supply it. I will also say today what I said yesterday -- the Province of Ontario will be supplying more starts than ever before in the fiscal year 1975-1976 and a greater percentage of the number of starts in Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the minister indicated that the private sector is going to have to come forward more strongly and the budget indicated he was looking for an extra $360 million, did the minister, along with the Premier (Mr. Davis), meet with the bankers yesterday and could he give it some indication of how close we are to the $360 million extra?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to indicate to the House the conversation we had yesterday with all the major banks -- the Premier, the Treasurer and myself were in attendance -- and it was quite encouraging. The figure we’re looking for actually is $360 million for home ownership; $100 million for rental accommodation, and that has to be through the financing of the private lending institutions. The banks did not say yes or no, but certainly gave us a very favourable indication that they would consider the matter and would get back to us within the next few days. I am quite hopeful that we will have additional funding from the lending institutions.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister recall that when the Ontario Housing Action Programme was announced the same game was played, of making a target for a calendar year that was then altered to a target for a fiscal year because of the ministry’s failures, and that it’s playing the same game again? It’s always I am tomorrow and never today in housing.

An hon. member: The member ought to know by now,

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I remember debating this in the estimates last year, and it’s absolutely no game at all.

Mr. Cassidy: A target for the calendar year, which the ministry then changed to a fiscal year.

Mr. Yakabuski: Let him give the answer,

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In Housing Ontario/74 it was very clearly spelled out -- which the member could never get through his head -- that it was a fiscal year, and the figures that CMHC provide are on a calendar year. They are two entirely different things.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. The minister had figures of 100,000.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister provide for this House, since we’re into such a different kind of debate on Hydro now -- the minister having taken the initiative -- can we have for the House the formulation, the rationale, in writing and with the tables which accompany it, for the reduction of the $1 billion? That is, the willingness to accept a $22 billion investment programme for Hydro rather than a $23 billion investment? Can he show us how he arrived at the decision to cut only $1 billion, and on whatever basis he arrived at it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He figured it would fit into a headline better.

Mr. Deans: He plucked it out of the air.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the Treasurer, in looking at the long-term borrowing needs of the province --

Mr. Lewis: Can he show us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- came to us, and this was done in various forms of meetings. I might just mention that we investigated the implications of the $1 billion reduction. For instance, it might mean the cancelling of the Wesleyville generating station; that’s roughly a $1 billion figure. We indicated that looking at the long term we did not, as a ministry, feel that this would be detrimental to the system or to the province, and agreed that if that was his general direction we could live with it.

There is no exchange of documents. This was through discussions, including discussions with my staff and with Hydro staff.

Mr. Lewis: It’s an extraordinary way of arriving at shaving $1 billion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s the quickest.

Mr. Lewis: The quickest? Ah, that’s very facile.

Mr. Deans: Why didn’t the minister choose $2 billion?

Mr. Lewis: The question is, however, now that the government is making these decisions -- that is, perhaps Wesleyville, perhaps not Wesleyville -- which used to be made by the Ontario Energy Board, can the minister give us some concrete rationale for the cutbacks, so that when we run into the unrepentant presumption of chairman Taylor we’ll have some way of saying to him, “This is how much the rates must be reduced by”?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll state it again: The board, on June 16, directed that a thorough review be made of its capital programme. That report will be completed by the end of this month. It will then be considered by the board of Ontario Hydro, and, within the guidelines or the policy directives set down by the government -- i.e. that a minimum of $1 billion must be cut from the capital spending up to, in effect, 1985, which would be the completion of projects -- they will make their recommendations and their decisions as a Hydro board, and will relay all this to the Ontario Energy Board. Those decisions were not made by the Ontario Energy Board. In fact, Hydro has always, within the government’s policy guidelines and directives, made the decisions.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): May I ask a supplementary? Now that we’ve gone full circle in response to the leader of the New Democratic Party, isn’t the minister in truth telling us that the government in effect picked the $1 billion figure out of the air without any substance in fact, and said unilaterally to Hydro: “Cut $1 billion. We don’t care where you cut it. We don’t know why you should do it or how you should do it.”? You just ad hoc-ed it. And may I say to the minister -- through the Speaker, and by way of question -- quite frankly, I misunderstood the minister’s first response to the leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, the question is coming now. The member’s question is coming now.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a hell of a way to run Hydro.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think the minister misrepresented his answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a hell of a way to run a public power corporation, I’ll say that.

Mr. Yakabuski: The member for Sarnia is not in the hockey rink now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I decided a long time ago that I wouldn’t be drawn in by the kind of childish nonsense that comes from over there.

Mr. Renwick: The minister had better be drawn in, because those are the questions he is going to have to answer.

Mr. Lewis: He is such a pure patrician over there. Sorry to intrude on his sense of elegance. He will answer about Hydro because he will have to.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Are the members opposite finished? Are they sure?

Mr. Lewis: I promised myself I wouldn’t be drawn in.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Do they want to use some more time?

Mr. Deans: The minister is a joke.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I have indicated is that --

Mr. Martel: Tell us, dad.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t he get out of the kitchen if it is too hot?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- looking at the long term, it was felt that delays in projects or possible cutbacks of one project or another could be lived with.

Mr. Martel: Grandfather.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We recognize that this will mean lower reserve margins. We recognize --

Mr. Lewis: How much lower?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that this will be reported at the end of July --

Mr. Deans: But how could he do it without knowing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that we could live with this; that it was not taking us to the point --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: But that is what the NDP leader said should be done.

Mr. Lewis: We said more than this; much more than this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I want to emphasize that the leeway is there to delay or to cut; that will be up to Hydro’s best judgement -- whatever is in the best interests of the power consumers of the province. But the advice was that the figure of $1 billion could be lived with.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question period is developing into a debate. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), I would like to put a question to the Provincial Secretary of Resources Development.

Mr. Speaker: I think the procedure is to ask the appropriate minister --

Mr. Reid: Can I ask the parliamentary assistant? He is not here -- oh, there he is.

Mr. Speaker: And then he may refer it to -- Order, please.

Mr. Reid: I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: The procedure is to ask the appropriate minister, and I see the hon. Provincial Secretary for Resources Development is here. Then he may refer it to the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Reid: Well, I asked --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: This was agreed to by the House.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, on the day that the matter was referred initially to the parliamentary assistant, the question was asked whether it would be done that way throughout the prolonged absence of the Minister of Agriculture, and the Speaker said yes.

Mr. Speaker: I said yes to the fact that, as in the case of members of boards and commissions, it would be referred to the parliamentary assistant the same as it would be to the member of the boards or commissions.

Mr. Renwick: You got a direction after you made your ruling.

Mr. Deans: Automatically.

Mr. Speaker: It would be very simple to refer it. If you ask it of the provincial secretary --

Mr. Reid: That is what caused all this problem. I will ask it of the provincial secretary.

Mr. Speaker: -- who may in turn, refer it to a parliamentary assistant.

BEEF CALF INCOME STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Reid: In regard to agriculture and the beef cow-calf stabilization programme, is the minister aware of the petition signed by approximately 125 farmers in the Rainy River district which totally rejects the cow-calf stabilization programme -- is the minister aware of that? Can he inform the House how many farmers have opted into the cow-calf programme and how many specifically from northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there has been at least a petition. Whether it comes from that particular area, I can’t recall.

Secondly, on the other question the hon. member has asked, I will get the information for him from the ministry.

Mr. Reid: One short supplementary: Is the minister aware that most of the farmers in Ontario, let alone northern Ontario, feel that there is at least a 20 cent shortfall in the 50 cents that the government is providing in the 70 cents total cost of their production per pound, and that the programme is going to be a total and absolute failure?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is a disagreement in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

REVENUE MINISTRY PERSONNEL

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement on page 13 of yesterday’s mini-budget on how many additional staff it will take to administer this tax “with its incredible uneven applications, rebates, forms and complexities.”

My question: Is the minister aware of the circulars sent out by his department today pointing out that the ministry is hiring or has hired staff for 62 different areas throughout the province, beginning in Alexandria and ending in Woodstock, where people will now be able to come to ask questions about this terribly complex bill the minster has brought in called the Land Speculation Tax Act? Can he inform us how many people he has hired to administer this -- if I may quote again --

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s sufficient.

Mr. Shulman: The minister knows the rest of it.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minster of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is directing his attention and ours to two different things, I suspect.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, right.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I recently issued a statement to advise the legal profession and all others concerned with the Land Speculation Tax Act that there would be officers of my ministry in the various and all registry offices in Ontario in accordance with an undertaking that I had given last September. I said that this would be done as soon as it was practical to do so. Those people are assessment people who are in those offices anyway to get other particulars for the use of the assessment division.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for High Park laid another egg.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They are now simply trained to give releases under the Land Speculation Tax Act where required. There is no additional staff required for that purpose as far as I am aware.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How does that grab the member for High Park?

Hon. Mr. Meen: As to the other side of it concerning the budget -- the second part of the member’s question -- existing staff in the Ministry of Revenue, particularly in the retail sales tax branch, are able to cope with these applications as they will be coming in.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In fact how many extra people has the minister hired since the day he brought in this Act?

Hon. Mr. Meen: If the hon. member is talking about the Land Speculation Tax Act, we have hired, so far as I know, no additional staff for the administration of that side of the Act at all.

Mr. Shulman: One final supplementary, if I may: How many additional people has his ministry hired -- and I don’t care what title he puts on them -- since he brought in this Act? Don’t say none.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I certainly wouldn’t, Mr. Speaker, because I really have no idea. All I can say is that in the overall picture my ministry has, as the other ministries have done, lived within our own constraints with the 2.5 per cent reduction.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister know how many people have been hired?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member panned out again.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answers to questions asked yesterday.

DISPOSAL OF KITCHENER BUILDINGS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) asked me a question concerning the disposal of buildings on land expropriated from the Kitchener Stock Yard Co. He questioned at the time, the sale of the buildings to a company known as Teperman and also why the buildings weren’t offered for auction to local farmers.

Mr. Speaker, when buildings need to be removed for highway construction, the method of disposal is contingent upon certain factors such as the size of the buildings, their condition and their location in built-up areas with difficult access. Our experience has shown that the letting of demolition work of this nature to other than experienced wreckers has posed problems relative to the safety of the public and to the people doing the work, not the least of which is the assurance that they possess the capability of completing the contract. The public at large which may be interested in salvaging material from buildings are not normally insured or bonded.

In this instance, the buildings were large in size, requiring the use of heavy equipment and are located on a site, the ingress and egress to which is over the main line of the Canadian National Railways. Under these conditions, it left us no alternative than to call for bids restricted to qualified wreckers. Tender forms were sent to 10 firms. The bids received were from Teperman and Sons Ltd. for $27,370; Advance Lumber and Wrecking, $43,800; and Greenspoon Bros. Ltd., $64,300. It was decided to award the work to the lowest bidder, Teperman and Sons, at a cost of $27,370. The ministry’s standard contract for the demolition of buildings was executed by Teperman which stipulated that the wrecker had to have $100,000 personal injury insurance; $100,000 property damage insurance and a $2,500 performance bond.

Mr. Speaker, I have here copies of the tenders that were required. I can assure the hon. member that the work that was required to clear this site, in my opinion -- and I think it’s quite properly so -- could more adequately and properly be carried out by having it done by one company on a demolition contract.

Mr. E. B. Good (Waterloo North): A supplementary: Since the barns removed from other sites expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications have been removed by farmers in the general area of Waterloo region, is the minister saying that the farmers, and particularly the Mennonite farmers of Waterloo region, could not have taken those barns clown? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is what I said at the very beginning of my remarks in answer to the original question.

Mr. Good: They would have paid the government for them too. Now they have to buy them back from Teperman.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This was a large project with a great number of buildings, as the hon. member well knows. The whole site had to be cleared properly. Does the member want me to take the time to read the requirements of the tender, which meant, “to excavate, to take out foundations, to fill the whole area back in again, to level it all off? To tear down one barn on one particular piece of property, I am sure that can be quite adequately done by a group of farmers, be they Mennonites or otherwise. But this was a large project that involved some safety; and if the hon. member thinks there is something unwieldy about this whole thing or under the table, come on over and read the documents and quit making accusations.

Mr. Good: The government had to work its friends into the deal.

Mr. Cassidy: They design it so the little guys can’t get in, they design the tenders that way.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George. Order please.

Mr. Good: That’s all I wanted to know. The minister said what I wanted to hear; he doesn’t like farmers.

INTEREST SUBSIDY PROGRAMME FOR HOUSING

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): My question is of the Minister of Housing: In view of the confused statements made by the minister yesterday with reference to the extension of the subsidized OHAP rates, could he tell us if there are regulations in effect now to cover this programme; and if so, who is going to get what, and where, and how?

Mr. Lewis: And why?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the only confusion exists in the mind of the member. The interest subsidy announcement yesterday very clearly stated that the regulations would have to be brought forward at a later date when we have had a chance to find out who is going to commit what funds into any particular programme. We have to relate it to conventional mortgage funding, which may be, as I said yesterday, 11½ or 11¾ per cent, down to the 10¼ per cent we had proposed. The regulations will not be drafted until sometime in the near future. I can’t give the member a definite date, but I certainly intend to see that the programme proceeds. As I indicated yesterday it is a very important programme as far as housing in Ontario is concerned.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary if I may: Is the minster aware that he first of all said the lender will be financed directly by ourselves on the differential, whatever it may be? Then he said the owner of the home will receive the cheque directly on the mortgage payments. Later, when he was asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party about using the tax credit system, he said there would be a rebate to the owner of the property. Is the minister telling me that that is consistent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has taken the whole matter out of context again. What we are saying is this: There will be a system worked out --

Mr. Roy: The minister never has any problem.

Mrs. Campbell: He is not confused.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It must be Tuesday, the member for Ottawa East is here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- whereby administration will either be through the Ontario Mortgage Corp. or through the lending institution. The credit will go directly to the mortgagee and will be administered, as I say, in due course. As to who will do it, I don’t know at this particular time. We think it will be either by monthly credits or a credit each six months, we don’t know at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

PLUTONIUM HAZARDS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy arising out of the four-week conference in Geneva, back in May, reviewing the results of the 1970 international treaty designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons: Is the minister aware that one of the main concerns that surfaced at this conference, and which was shared by representatives from the USA and the USSR, was how to prevent nuclear materials from being stolen by criminals and terrorists, a danger that is growing in proportion to the number of nuclear power stations using recycled plutonium?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, I missed the last part.

Mr. Burr: It is a danger which is growing in proportion to the number of nuclear power stations using recycled plutonium.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that concern was expressed, and it is one which I think we all share.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a short supplementary?

Mr. Burr: Yes, Mr. Speaker; they always are.

In view of the fact that the acceptability of nuclear power in Ontario has been based partly on the non-use of recycled plutonium, how does the minister react to the recent announcement of the AECL that Chalk River will now begin to recycle plutonium?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think given proper security and precautions the recycling of plutonium is very important in the long-term development of our system. It offers an opportunity to recover materials from the spent uranium which we can then recycle through the system and hopefully reduce our costs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

QEW RAMPS CONTROL PROBLEM

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minster of Transportation and Communications. In view of the traffic congestion caused by the experimental metering of traffic at Southdown Rd., Mississauga Rd. and Highway 10, would the minister tell the House and the members just what plans he has and if steps are going to be taken to alleviate this? Better still, will he discontinue --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The people in Mississauga South don’t like this.

Mr. Kennedy: -- the experiment until the bugs are ironed out of it or --

Mr. Singer: Cities are for people, not for cars.

Mr. Kennedy: -- discontinue it without renewing the experiment?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already instructed that the experiment end. We’ve attempted this surveillance in an effort to improve the facilities on the QEW and we still feel that a degree of experimentation should be carried out in order to improve the flows not only on the QEW but all expressways. I recognize there have been some lengthy traffic delays and they will be eliminated immediately.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s glad the member asked that question.

Mr. Singer: The federal government wasn’t responsible for that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It probably was.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Singer: The feds did it again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a great swan song. That is a great record. One of the finest Treasurers Ontario ever had. Good man.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the commission on election contributions and expenses at its meeting on June 24 unanimously passed the following resolution: “That the commission take such steps as are necessary to obtain an immediate amendment to cover pre-campaign contributions to candidates.”

Sir, this bill fully satisfies the unanimous request of the commission and the effect of the bill is that no contributions can be accepted by a candidate or on his behalf prior to his becoming registered as a candidate and that cannot occur until the issue of the writ.

Mr. Singer: Did the minister hear anything about that before they passed their resolution?

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ambulance Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day I beg to inform the House that as directed by the Board of Internal Economy, I have tabled the statement of the members’ expenses for the fiscal year 1974-1975.

Mr. Lewis: What does that mean?

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, before the orders of the day and while the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) is in the House, Mr. Speaker, if I may. On April 7 of this year, in winding up the Throne debate on behalf of the official opposition, Hansard records that I took strong issue with certain comments made by the member for St. David relative to the operation of politics in this great country wherein she analogized some of the matters that went on with Watergate. I don’t, in any way, want to convey any apologies to her with respect to my comments made in the context of her remarks, but I do want to say this to her today, if I may, that I do tender her an apology in this respect: There certainly are dirty tricks in Ottawa.

Mr. Lewis: There is a conspiracy but it is not the one she described.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: Government notice of motion No. 5, Mr. McKeough.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 5

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves resolution No. 5.

RESOLUTION: That this House confirms Ontario Regulation 383/75 amending Ontario Regulation 118/74 for the Niagara Escarpment planning area, and Ontario Regulation 599/75 amending Ontario Regulation 472/73 for the parkway belt west planning area.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion be concurred in? Agreed.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, having been away at our convention, I am just looking for my papers to comment on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this debate on the resolution? Was I too hasty?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I looked around but I didn’t see anybody rising to speak so we passed it, but we would give anyone an opportunity to speak if they wish.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I cannot find my notes, but we wanted to comment about the inadequacy of the process which is taking place in the Legislature in asking the House to confirm the regulation amending the regulation about the Niagara Escarpment planning area and the regulation amending the regulation for the parkway belt west planning area.

I’m just focusing on the contents of that. As I recall, the regulation itself set out an amended set of boundaries, including the question of the refineries and that kind of thing. But let’s face it, the Legislature is not a planning body; we are a debating body that has been intended to debate broad policies. We are confronted with a situation here, not only in this particular resolution but on future resolutions which will affect the two planning areas concerned, where we can’t cope competently with what has to be done, and no other body has been created by the government that can cope competently with it.

I would suggest to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that the cabinet cannot cope competently with resolutions such as the one that is on the order paper. The cabinet meets for a few hours a week, it has many responsibilities, both political and administrative, and the detailed technical material which is before it in the form of the regulation is simply too complicated for it to get into. The cabinet subcommittee which looks at it is in a similar kind of situation. Meeting for two or three hours a week behind closed doors, it decides what it is going to do, but basically it turns to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Beckett) or it turns to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) or it turns to the civil servants and it says, “Look, is this okay?” and the person it turned to says, “Yes, it is okay,” and the subcommittee says, “Fine” and puts a rubber stamp on it.

That is basically what we have come to, Mr. Speaker, that we are simply a rubber stamp as well. I think it is deplorable that the government has not given its mind to ways in which there can be involvement by the governmental authorities affected in ratifying or in recommending to this Legislature whether or not to ratify the various regulations that are going to come out under this particular process.

Once again, if I can recall the way this works, what we have before us right now is the interim draft of the parkway belt plan including these new boundaries. That draft has been entirely concocted behind closed doors by planning people with virtually no public consultation. The Act provides that that consultation will take place at a later date but it does not provide for the right kind of input, I would suggest, during the actual creation of the development branch.

The feeling we had was that the resolution procedure is ridiculous because the Legislature is so ill-equipped and because, let’s face it, given the fact that in our caucus five or six researchers handle the whole range of government, and that the official opposition caucus has got a similar number of people. We are simply not equipped, even by turning to our people, to find out whether or not this is a reasonable way to proceed.

This morning, I appeared before the Robarts commission on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, along with grassroots members of the party and representatives of the Metro NDP co-ordinating committee. We tried there to come to grips with this very problem by proposing the creation of a lakeshore co-ordinating committee that would act in an advisory capacity to the government in areas where there were government planning responsibilities. Whether they are the parkway belt, housing, transportation or job location, there are many areas where the provincial government now takes decisions behind closed doors and then lays them on the public and on the various levels of government that are affected. It’s not right that all this should be done behind closed doors and it’s not right that the Legislature should be treated as a rubber stamp.

The minister may try to say the estimates process could be used as a means of getting around the problem, but the fact is that by the time we get to the Treasury estimates in this House this year, which is typical, there may be only five or six hours to deal with the whole range of policy that is controlled by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. There too, in other words, there will not be adequate opportunity to consider the whole range of material which is in the interim draft parkway belt plan. In other words, we are eunuchs as far as this procedure is concerned.

We suggested that there should be a lakeshore co-ordinating committee made up of the regional municipalities around Metro and of the boroughs within Metro. They would have one or two representatives on that lakeshore co-ordinating committee and they would meet regularly with representatives of the province in order to come to grips precisely with issues such as the parkway belt west plan and the Niagara Escarpment plan.

The government’s proposals would become public there; and the municipalities, which are the level of government most directly affected, would be able to use their more adequate staff resources and their knowledge of the area affected in order to comment on the proposals of the government and in order to advise the government what they thought of its proposals.

It would be up to government to decide whether to accept or reject their advice, but the whole process would take place in public. We would not be put in the position we are in right now, where members of the opposition, who are inadequately served by research support, are asked in the course of a busy month or so to take a resolution or a very complicated planning document and somehow to come to grips with it and somehow, for that matter, to consult with those governments out there that are the bodies that are directly affected.

I would need to go and spend a day and a half with the planning people from Durham west to Hamilton in order to have a good feeling about understanding the parkway belt west plan, without even getting into the amendments that are proposed by the Niagara Escarpment plan. That kind of time is simply not available for me as an opposition critic. It’s not available, I would suspect, to the members of the Liberal Party either. And, as is well known, the members of the government simply take no interest in these matters at all; they leave it to the minister without portfolio responsible for municipal affairs, to the Treasurer and to the civil service.

There is a Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, which has been meeting for the last couple of years. The past Treasurer (Mr. White) gave that body some meaning, but it has only three of four representatives from the areas that are affected by the two plans we are discussing. It is also an inadequate body to discuss detailed findings such as has been proposed in these two regulations. Moreover, the regional municipalities in and around Metro Toronto happen to be underrepresented on that body and it is over-representative of the smaller municipalities because that is the way it was structured. That’s okay for what the PMLC has to do, but it too is not an adequate body to deal with consultation affecting the lakeshore region.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk a bit about the proposals in the regulations themselves. What I would like to say is that what is proposed in these regulations, without going into the detail but looking at the maps and reading through the general rationale, simply confirms what we had to say when the parkway belt was originally brought in. it is not a genuine parkway. It is a series of utility and transportation corridors which in most cases are only wide enough to accommodate highways and other services.

The concept that the government is separating communities or providing genuine buffers between communities like Mississauga and Halton when it puts in a parkway strip which is only 500 ft or 1,000 ft wide is absolutely ridiculous.

What’s being done here is obviously better than nothing but all one can say is it is only that; it is only better than nothing. I have to say, reading through the document on the parkway -- I am not sure whether there is a comparable document for the Niagara Escarpment -- that an awful lot of it is pretty damn fatuous.

There are a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member that we are supposed to be debating this particular resolution or resolutions, not the general concept or the proper method of doing this type of thing which I have allowed the member to go on about.

We are not at this point in time, supposed to be debating the theory or the philosophy of the parkway belt. It’s these particular resolutions. I hope the member can confine his remarks to those. This is the purpose of this debate today, for this particular resolution, amending certain regulations. This is where he should confine his remarks if he would, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I am doing it at rather short notice. However, the statement on the parkway belt west which was made by the Treasurer at the time this resolution was introduced included a very comprehensive reference to the interim plan which was presented at the same time. It seems to me the two matters go very closely together and if the minister has the right to lump them together in a statement to the Legislature, surely the other members of this House have the same privileges and prerogatives. I am sure the --

Mr. Speaker: We are to discuss the certain amendments, the specific amendments, as mentioned in this resolution.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, at the time this matter was introduced by the minister, he gave a six-page, single-spaced statement.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t care.

You are now debating the Speaker’s ruling. The ruling is that we are to debate this resolution, not the whole philosophy. I don’t care what the minister said when he introduced it. The purpose of this resolution is to debate this particular amending resolution. Now that’s all. I don’t know what is happening in it but you must confine your remarks to that, not make it a general discussion of the parkway belt and all the other regulations and resolutions there might have been; deal with this particular amending resolution.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the amending resolution includes 413 applications for amendments which were considered and of which about 106 amendments and exemptions have been granted. I don’t know what that does except it looks to me like a pretty major set of changes to the parkway belt. When one looks at it, it turns out that they are basically cosmetic and don’t change the basic rationale or the basic kind of description of the parkway belt.

I will observe the Speaker’s ruling, but I would say you are muzzling members of this House if you permit government members to make their statements, if you permit --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: The member is out of order in debating my ruling. The procedures are quite clear: This resolution amends certain regulations of the Niagara Escarpment planning area and that’s what this is all about, not the general philosophy of the parkway belt or regulations or anything else; not all the overall regulations, these particular ones. The hon. member, I am sure, is aware of that.

Mr. Cassidy: I find it very difficult to separate the two things, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May we have some clarification from the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister could explain. Surely the statement on the interim draft plan and the regulations --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am running the House, not the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. R. B. Beckett (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I was prepared at the start of this resolution to make an explanation, to the best of my ability, as to the changes contemplated in these regulations.

Mr. Speaker: I think under the circumstances it would be best if the hon. minister would do that, and then the hon. member may carry on and make his remarks pertaining to those. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House will recall, I believe, the statement that was made by the Treasurer on parkway belt west on Friday, May 23, 1975, and all members of the House were provided with a very large book with attached maps that covered this whole matter. At that time, in the statement to the Legislature, the Treasurer indicated that because of studies that had been done there were certain changes that were being recommended, and on page 3 of the Treasurer’s statement he started to indicate the changes that were being recommended to the House and those are in these regulations.

Very briefly, the changes would be that an area to the west of Milton is included in the Niagara Escarpment planning area. This area was previously within the parkway belt west but it is advisable to transfer the area to the NEPA so that it can be planned in conjunction with other neighbouring areas, all of which are directly related to the escarpment. This has the concurrence of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The second change in the parkway belt involves the parts of Burlington and Hamilton which were in the Niagara Escarpment planning area. This anomaly is now eliminated and the area is solely within the parkway belt. In addition, there’s a very small area of the NEPA south of the parkway belt. It is now believed this area is not necessary for the purpose of escarpment planning and so it has been eliminated from the NEPA, but so that there will be continued planning this area will come under the normal planning process of the Burlington and Halton region.

These are the three areas suggested, Mr. Speaker, and the actual regulations, as has been said by the hon. member, were filed back in May and they are in more detail -- the descriptions of the actual properties themselves.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just comment further, briefly. I would have liked to have talked a bit more about the interim plan; I just urge the minister that the government consider a way by which this Legislature can be seized with these planning documents at the stage which they are at right now. As the minister might have commented, and as the Treasurer commented in May, there was some consultation with municipal representatives to the advisory committee before the preparation of the interim plan. It goes out to them again, but the House, which also has a responsibility, is impotent. I have just been hammered out of order in seeking to discuss the interim draft plan as a whole.

We are also impotent in considering the changes to the regulations, because they tend to be of a fairly technical nature and, once again, fairly difficult to seize upon.

Within the limits of our capacity in looking at the changes and the major amendments that were made, most of them were matters of transferring jurisdiction from one authority to another -- from the parkway authority over to the escarpment authority. We didn’t disagree with that in itself, but the process is one that raises some grave doubts in our mind; the isolation of the process, the nature of the parkway, perhaps some of the misleading descriptions that have been made about the parkway by the government, the fact that this Legislature is giving a rubber stamp without really understanding or being able to come to grips with the matters that are being put forward; and finally, may I say, the fact that this whole draft planning process goes forward in the absence of an overall comprehensive provincial plan. We can’t really design for growth vest of Metro or in the Niagara Escarpment over the next 20 or 30 years if we don’t know whether that growth will take place in 40 or in 10 years, but suspect is will probably take effect in a much faster time than sensible rational planning would allow. Until the government has an overall and comprehensive provincial plan, then a lot of what is being done here will be nugatory.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to return to the basis of this resolution.

Mr. Cassidy: I would return the debate to you, Mr. Speaker, having concluded my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: is there any further discussion on tins resolution before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, I would reject the comments of the hon. member with regard to this being done behind closed doors, because these matters have been discussed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which is a commission of both elected members from municipalities in the areas concerned end members of the general public. The Parkway Advisory Committee also has a number of members of the public. In the case of the last amendment or change, tins was actually requested be the Burlington council, it requested this small amendment.

I would suggest, sir, that this has not been done behind closed doors As well, there is the fact that there was a very large meeting held on May 23. There was the statement in the House, and this very voluminous document was made available to all concerned.

Resolution concurred in.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 15. An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister make a brief introductory statement as to how thorough going this amendment is or whether it’s just technical?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, this is a very small amendment. As the members of the House are aware, the Act provides for the planning and development of the Niagara Escarpment and its vicinity. It provides for the designation of development control areas. In such cases, no development may take place without a permit from the minister, which is covered in sections 23 and 24 of the original Act.

Section 24(1) of the Act states that no person shall undertake any development in the area unless such development is exempt under the regulations or he is a holder of a development permit and so on. The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to clarify what is meant by development. In the explanatory note the bill adds a definition of development for the assistance of all concerned to make it clear that a change in use of any land, building or structure situate in an area of development control, unless exempt under the regulations, requires a development permit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we intend to disagree with the amendment, but I wonder if the minister would accept a couple of questions in order to avoid having to put the bill into committee? I would just express a couple of concerns and then put the questions.

The concern is that presumably the definition of development that was assumed, seas that it was actual construction, something that required a building permit; it is now being extended to include any change in use, Whether or not it might happen to require a building permit from the local municipality.

That’s pretty far-sweeping and it does raise the problem of unnecessary interference in the lives of people who just happen to live in the Niagara area. The minister, as a former municipal politician, knows as well as I do that sometimes these regulation affect the guy who wants to put an addition on to his front porch or to make some other change, from chickens to pigs if he has a farm. In other words, a very minor kind of thing involves a lot of bureaucratic red tape, but somebody else wise has a very major kind of change seems to go sailing through the process because he understand the ropes at city hall or at Queen’s Park and they somehow can get major changes easily while the little guy gets hurt.

That could be a problem in the particular case as well. I wonder if the minister could respond to that general concern on my part; and then explain what administrative procedures have been set up in order to facilitate the granting of these development permits for reasonable kinds of requests, either for construction or for changes in use that are mentioned here, in order to ensure that they involve a minimum of time delay and of red tape?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is brought to the House at the request of the persons who have the responsibility for attempting to administer this Act as well as the elected persons in the municipalities themselves. This involved a question of the word “development,” it was considered that it was not clear in the Act whether or not the term “development” covered the change of use of an existing building, for example a house to a store. Therefore, for the purpose of clarification, it was thought desirable to make it clear that development does in fact include a change of use.

There will be no change in the procedures that are in the Act at present, but this will allow regulations to provide for exemptions to be made for minor changes in use that occur and that could be accomplished without needing a permit. This is in effect a clarification of what the word development is.

Mr. Cassidy: Would it be possible to put another question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I will allow another question for clarification.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. The regulation power, as I understand what the minister says, will allow exemptions for minor kinds of changes in use. Could the minister please explain what procedures have been set up in order to ensure that these permits are available quickly? Does it require coming to Queen’s Park or are these decisions delegated in the name of the ministry to the Niagara Escarpment Commission and its officials?

Hon. Mr. Beckett: It is my understanding these are delegated to officials on the spot.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973.

POUNDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of Bill 134, An Act to amend the Pounds Act.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Just a brief note of explanation on this bill. There have been some problems in some areas of northern Ontario that the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) has brought to our attention. This will impose a prohibition against cattle, goats, horses and sheep running at large there and it will increase the maximum fine for such.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is that the only explanation the parliamentary assistant intends to give?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion on Bill 134?

Mr. Deans: How do I know? I haven’t found it yet.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Eaton: The member for Wentworth may want to speak on this.

Mr. Speaker: We will wait for the hon. member for Wentworth to have a quick look before we carry this.

Mr. Deans: No, no; that is fine.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 134, An Act to amend the Pounds Act.

Clerk of the House: The 10th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 130, the Drainage Act, 1975.

DRAINAGE ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, when we were debating this bill the other day I adjourned the debate and today I have a few comments I want to make. As you know, sir, as the former chairman of the drainage committee, there are many things in this bill which I feel will be of benefit to the people of Ontario, both urban and rural.

Bill 130, the Drainage Act, 1975, makes the petition procedure much more acceptable and available to the people of Ontario. This bill will also upgrade the drainage system in the Province of Ontario. It will permit drainage superintendents and give them very broad powers. It will improve the appeal procedure. It will strengthen the local court of revision. Following this, ft makes the machinery possible for the drainage appeal tribunal and removes these present appeals from the county courts.

I would just like to make a comment that the county courts have done a very good job within my area in dealing with these matters. What the committee did recognize was that it was something that should be outside of their bounds, and the present Act does confirm this.

The referee will be looked on as one to settle any points of law with powers similar to those of the Supreme Court of Ontario in this area.

To look a little more closely, there are a few things in the Act which I would like to comment on at this time. Before doing so, I would like to comment that it is my opinion that Judge Clunis, who has been the drainage referee, has been one of the most qualified people in the Province of Ontario to hold down that post and has been very helpful to all the people of Ontario. I’m not sure the official opposition would agree with me 100 per cent on that, but they’re not arguing either.

Under the new Act, Mr. Speaker, there are four ways to initiate a drain.

No. 1, under section 2 of the Act, makes it possible for two or more farmers to go together. If they can agree on a cost-sharing basis, they can register this within the registry office and it has the same effect as if it were put through under the bylaw covered by a different section of the drainage Act.

No. 2 covers requisition drains where the farmer can put up a deposit of some $300; in the previous Act I believe this was $100. Under the present Act, they can spend up to $7,500; under the previous Act this was $2,500. In addition to that, the roads and any utility commissions are extra. So this is going to relieve a great many of the problems that have existed where there is one neighbour who needs an outlet through a roadway, through a railroad or some other type of public utility.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the petition procedure is being changed from the requirement on the majority of owners. That particular section still remains in the new Drainage Act, but under the proposal, in addition to the majority of the owners it is 60 per cent of the actual property. This, to me, is a great improvement for the portions of rural Ontario where the urban dwellers have moved in and taken small lots which made it very difficult for those involved in the agricultural industry to be able to get drainage where it’s needed.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Act has been clarified as to the number counted. It now says: “One owner, one property.” The old Act lacked clarification down this line.

As we go on through the Act, Mr. Speaker, it has also been made possible to expedite the petition once it has been received by the council. The council appoints an engineer and he gets a preliminary report. Under the proposed Act, Mr. Speaker, through the tribunal -- which I want to touch on later -- if the council doesn’t act, which is happening in a great many cases today, or if the council turns it down, there is an appeal procedure open to the people.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, the House leader had problems in his home riding, and the problem still exists with Euphrasia township. I am sure the procedure that is set up today offers a solution to the farmers who, in my opinion, require drainage within that area.

The new Act also sets out a timetable of the number of days a council has to deal with a proposal, and the number of days for the engineer to act, which to me is very important. It should stop the time lapse between asking for the drain and the time the actual drain is completed.

Another point in the new Act, Mr. Speaker, is an on-site meeting. Once the engineer gets instructions form the council to proceed with the drain, it gives him a certain length of time to set up a meeting on the drain. Following this, the engineer I would hope -- because the Act doesn’t set it out specifically -- would take some guidance from the people involved with the drain and from the council, in order that those people paying for the drain would be able to have their input.

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed Act the engineer is to treat all bridges on the drains as part of the drainage report. In the past, Mr. Speaker, there have been problems in such areas where a certain bridge was not part of the drain and a certain road authority or certain utility commission may have caused difficulties. Due to a poor bridge there can be faulty drainage for a great number of years.

I refer you to section 39, subsection 2, Mr. Speaker. It says:

“Where, after 30 days’ notice by council, the engineer neglects to make his report within the time limited by or extended under this section, he shall forfeit all claims for compensation for the work done by him upon the drainage works, and the council of the local municipality may appoint another engineer.”

That makes it quite possible, where an engineer is either not carrying out his duties or has accepted too much work and doesn’t have time to do it, for the council to remove him from the job and appoint another engineer without any liability on the municipality.

I also refer you to subsection 1 of section 41:

“Upon the filing of the engineer’s report, the council of the initiating municipality, if it intends to proceed with the drainage works, shall, within 30 days of the filing of the report, cause the clerk of the initiating municipality to send a copy of the report and notice by prepaid mail stating the date of the filing of the report.”

Mr. Speaker, in the past it has been noted that in some areas of our province some of township officials have received a report and it has lain in a file for several weeks or several months, and therefore was not available to the people requiring the drainage.

I also refer to you, Mr. Speaker, to section 45, subsection 2:

“When a report is not adopted by council, any petitioner may appeal to the tribunal; or where lands used for agricultural purposes are included in the area to be drained, the minister may refer the matter to the tribunal.”

This, of course, is new. Under the old procedure, if there was no action the ratepayer or the person who was hoping to receive drainage had nowhere to go. He was left sitting in the water, if we may use that term.

I will refer also to section 46 of the Act:

“The council of the initiating municipality shall, within five days after the adoption of the report, send a copy of the provisional bylaw, exclusive of the engineer’s report, and a notice of the time and place of the first sitting of the court of revision, by prepaid mail to every other local municipality in which any land or road is assessed for the drainage works or for which allowance or compensation has been provided for in this report.”

To me, this should also accelerate the drainage work and again make it more available to the people who are requiring drainage.

Going on to another subsection, in section 46, the last part of subsection 2 says:

“... under subsection 1, shall, within 30 days after adoption of the report, send a copy of the provisional bylaw, exclusive of the engineer’s report, and a notice of the time and place of the sitting of the court of revision by prepaid mail to each owner...”

Again, this makes the municipalities, in turn, go ahead with the necessary proceedings.

The next section sets out the dates of the court of revision. I want to dwell for a moment on the appeal procedure. Under the proposed appeal procedure, the first court must be a court appointed within the local municipality by someone eligible to be elected to the council of that local municipality. In the case where there is more than one municipality involved in the drainage work, each one of those municipalities will appoint one member to the court of revision. Following this, if there is still a difference of opinion -- and I refer the members to section 48 --

“Any owner of land or any public utility affected by a drainage works, if dissatisfied with the report of the engineer on the grounds that,

“(a) the benefits to be derived from the drainage works are not commensurate with the estimated cost thereof;

“(b) the drainage works should be modified on grounds to be stated;

“(c) the compensation or allowances provided by the engineer are inadequate or excessive;”

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to the assembly today that this part is very important. To me, it will save a great deal of money in expert witnesses and technical people, and bring the matter down to the level of the individual who is getting the drainage and allow him to express his own views in terms that are acceptable to that court.

I refer the members to section 51 of the proposed Act, the powers of the tribunal:

“On any appeal or reference to the tribunal under this Act, the tribunal shall hear and determine the matter and, where not so provided, may make such order and direct such things to be done as are authorized by this Act and as it considers proper to carry out the purposes of this Act.”

I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer you also to subsection 3 of section 54 of the Act:

“Every appeal shall be heard by the Tribunal by way of a trial de novo and shall be disposed of by the tribunal in such manner as it considers proper, and its decision is final.”

That is very important, Mr. Speaker. Municipalities in many areas of Ontario have been tormented and tempted by someone who is threatening to appeal a decision. I am not sure whether we have any legal people here in the House at the moment outside of our legal staff, but for any of the lawyers in the House I believe I could safely say that their business thrives when they can keep threatening to go to a higher court. The people who need the drainage want a decision, and whether it’s good or had they are willing to live with it. Under the proposed Act, that is what is going to happen.

Section 55 says:

“... [when] the engineer is called upon to give evidence as to how an assessment was determined, he shall give his evidence before the appellant presents his case.”

This to me is very important also, Mr. Speaker. The engineer does come forth, and quite often if this information had been available to the appellant the appeal would not have started in the first place.

Section 57 says that if there appear to be errors in the report of the engineer “or that for any other reason the report should be reconsidered, may refer the report back to him for reconsideration, and the engineer shall thereupon reconsider his report and shall further report to the council, which report has the same effect and shall be dealt with in the same manner and proceedings thereon shall be the same as upon the original report.”

It has always concerned me that the municipal council is the agent of the people and under the Drainage Act and under court proceedings -- it has been before the courts in the past -- the municipal council was not permitted to instruct the engineer in his work.

I feel it is very important. The municipal council is appointed to represent the people. It’s the people’s drainage and I am convinced that the municipal council should have some input in order that it can fully represent the people within its municipality. I refer to subsection 5 of 58:

“Where the council does not proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the work after the passage of the bylaw, a petitioner may appeal to the tribunal or, where lands used for agricultural purposes are included in the area to be drained, the minister may refer the matter to the tribunal, and the tribunal may direct the conned to take such action as the council is authorized to take under this Act and as the tribunal considers proper.”

There are records in this province of drains which have gone through the necessary steps, have received the approval of the court of revision and third reading of the bylaw and still stand on the books of the municipality. The people needing the drainage are still suffering. Under the old Act there is no place for these people to go but as members can see that section is going to be very important.

I refer the members of the assembly to section 59:

“(1) Where the contract price exceeds 133 per cent of the engineer’s estimate of the contract price, the council of the initiating municipality shall call a meeting in the manner prescribed by section 41, and sections 42 and 43 apply mutatis mutandis.

“(2) If at the close of the meeting the petition contains a sufficient number of names to comply with section 4, the council may proceed with the construction of the drainage works.”

This also is very important, Mr. Speaker. As you knew, in view of the rising prices of today, it is quite possible that if a drain was estimated some six months ago today the tender might come in at twice that of the estimated amount. I am sure members would agree that the people who are paying the bill should be made aware that their assessment has increased by that amount.

I refer to section 6 of section 65:

“When the owners of the subdivided land mutually agree on the share of the drainage assessment that each should pay they may enter into a written agreement and file it with the clerk of the local municipality and, if the agreement is approved by the council by resolution no engineer need to be instructed under subsection 1.”

Under the old Act, it was not legal for the clerk, without the help of the engineer, to divide an assessment. Under this, Mr. Speaker, if you and your neighbour have severed a property and can agree on the division of cost, it’s just a matter of notifying the clerk and this does give him authority to continue.

I want to skip over to section 72:

“(1) The council of the local municipality, within 40 days after the engineer’s account is presented to the clerk of the municipality, may, on notice to the engineer, apply to the tribunal, which shall review the account and make any alteration it considers just.”

I think this is very important. Either a great number of people throughout the province did not understand the costs associated with an engineer or the work or I would have to say the engineers have overcharged for their work. The people on the drain were unhappy; the council felt they didn’t have sufficient information to do anything about it and this Act, under that particular section, makes it possible for a complete review of the time and the amount of money the engineer has put in.

Now subsection 2 of 73: “The costs of council meetings and special council meetings shall not be included in the cost of the drainage works.”

In other words, it clarifies the Act. It makes it quite clear that the cost of holding the meeting is to be paid for out of the general revenues of the municipality.

I also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to subsection 3 of section 73, which I would have to say to you is a major change in the Act.

“The council of a local municipality may by bylaw provide for payment to the clerk of the municipality of reasonable fees or other remuneration for services performed by him in carrying out the provisions of this Act, but such fees or other remuneration shall not be deemed to form part of the cost of the drainage works.”

In other words, it is to be similar to the situation respecting a roads superintendent; a municipality will pay out of the general funds of the municipality for any work that the clerk has to do in carrying out his duties. I might say that this is the case today under the Local Improvement Act; actually the Drainage Act is being brought into line with several other Acts.

I refer you, sir, to section 75(1):

“The council of any local municipality undertaking the repair of a drainage works without the report of an engineer, shall, before commencing the repairs ... give two readings to a bylaw for undertaking such repairs, which bylaw shall recite the description, extent and estimated cost of the repairs to be done and the amount to be contributed therefor by each local municipality affected by the drainage works.”

That is a new section also.

I skip by the next subsection and go to section 75(3):

“The council of any municipality shall not be required to assess and levy the amount charged for maintenance or repair of a drainage works more than once in every five years if the total expense incurred does not exceed the sum of $1,000, in which case sections 64 and 65 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act do not apply.”

As I understand the Act, this means the council of a local municipality can’t carry out the work and, if the work has turned out to be not acceptable to the people, let it lie on the books for an indefinite period. It means they are going to have to face the consequences of any mistake and put it on the tax rolls so that those involved certainly understand.

Section 77 is a very important section. It increases the amount that a municipal council can spend on repair and improvements.

“The council [may] make improvements thereto by deepening, widening or extending the drainage works to an outlet, provided the cost of such deepening, widening or extending is not more than $4,500 [in the old Act, that figure was $1,500], but the amount expended may be increased to 20 per cent of the initial cost of the drainage works upon receiving approval as set out in the requirements for a petition of those parties eligible to sign a petition under section 4.”

I might say that this particular section was requested, possibly in other terms, at practically every one of the 80-plus meetings that we held across this province. It was asked for by the councils, by the individuals and by the contractors. The engineers did not disagree with it, and I am sure hon. members realize it is going to remove work from the engineering field. My experience has been that there is a scarcity in this province of this particular type of engineer, and if there is any way that we can lessen the amount of work and responsibilities placed on the engineer, we should be doing so.

I refer to section 85, which deals with grants under the proposed Act and on the recommendation of a drainage superintendent, about whom I should probably speak first.

Drainage superintendents come under section 93 of the Act. I, as chairman of the committee, and I am sure all the committee members, became quite concerned about the powers and the responsibilities that the several different drainage commissioners, as we call them, were accepting throughout the province. In many cases, as was mentioned in the report, the drainage commissioners were receiving pay to accept responsibility as commissioners, but when there was a mistake of any type it was referred back to the engineer, saying it was he who was the one at fault and that he hadn’t looked at it.

In these cases, maybe I had a little different opinion than some of the members of the committee, but I was convinced that we had possibly one too many people in here. We had the engineer, who was carrying out the supervision of the work and accepting the responsibility, and we were paying a commissioner, who apparently was not accepting any responsibility. In fact, I well remember one committee meeting that I was at where the commissioner, who was appointed -- he was not a member of the council, he was a commissioner for the township -- to carry out the works under the Municipal Drainage Act openly admitted that he accepted no responsibilities, and when I asked him what he felt his responsibilities were, he certainly did not give us an answer, Mr. Speaker.

So, in view of that, the committee recommended, and the new Drainage Act was the necessary groundwork for, what we will call a drainage superintendent. Our technical people, under Prof. Ross Irvine of the University of Guelph, left the committee with the impression that possibly with a few days’ course in the University of Guelph -- it was suggested eight or 10 days -- and a review course every year, a drainage superintendent would be able and qualified to go out and take levels and would be able to cheek against the engineer’s profile as to the depth and the size of the drain. So, in view of this, the new Act makes it possible for a drainage superintendent to be financed out of, again, the general funds of the municipality, not chargeable against the drains.

It makes room for the Province of Ontario to subsidize this drainage superintendent to the extent oil 50 per cent. Also, Mr. Speaker, it gives the drainage superintendent authority, with the approval of certain sums of money, to go out and repair drains within his municipality. Again, this was asked for at practically every hearing by all levels, by the municipal council, by the individuals, and by the contractors, that he can go out and repair a drain to its original depth, and providing that he puts his signature to it, he will then qualify for the one-third subsidy. The appointment of the superintendent was a major step in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. It puts drainage on the same plateau, the same level, as sewers and local improvements in the urban centres. It also makes it possible that two or more municipalities can appoint the same drainage superintendent.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, the court of revision can be three or more people eligible to be elected to the municipal council. In the case where there is more than one municipality the bill states:

“... Two members appointed by the council of the initiating municipality, of whom one shall be chairman and one member appointed by the council of each of the neighbouring municipalities and the court shall hear and rule on appeals as if the entire area affected by the drainage works were in one municipality.

The drainage tribunal is going to consist of a chairman with several vice-chairmen. I haven’t had an opportunity to speak to the minister, but I am sure that the committee had the same feeling as I did on this. We felt --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He is out of the hospital now; the member can speak to him.

Mr. Henderson: Is he out of the hospital now? Well, I am sure we are all very glad to hear that.

Mr. Gaunt: Indeed, that’s right.

Mr. Henderson: I didn’t believe he was out of the hospital on the weekend but I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Eaton: He was out yesterday after noon.

Mr. Henderson: He was out yesterday afternoon, his colleague, the parliamentary assistant informs me.

The tribunal is to be made up of the chairman and several vice-chairmen. I am sure that this would have to be worked out as time goes along. It does state that three must sit on any hearing and one of those three shall be a lawyer in order that they stay within their legal hounds.

The referee will be appointed. As I read and understand the Act, he will be able to rule on any points of law. I quote from subsection 4 of section 105:

“The referee has power to determine all questions of fact or law that it is necessary to determine for the purpose of disposing of any matter within his jurisdiction and to make such decision, order or direction as may be necessary for such purpose.”

There are many other sections and changes in the Act that came about as a result of the committee’s work. In his remarks the other day, the hon. member for Essex-Kent, who is in his seat at the moment, suggested that there were many things in the committee’s report that were not in this Act. I would have to ask the member to name some of them because, as far as I am concerned, all the recommendations are there.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I have been informed by other members of the committee there are a few of them.

Mr. Henderson: Well, that is fine.

Mr. Ruston: That is usual really in most cases.

Mr. Henderson: I would have to say as far as I am concerned, the recommendations of the committee are within the Act. There is one other thing that I skipped past on the way through the Act that I have to tell you about, Mr. Speaker. Last week I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Ralph Gagner, who is the clerk of Dover township who has been appointed -- I am not sure whether by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or by the Association of Rural Municipalities of Ontario -- and Mr. Donald Williams, who is the chairman of the Association of Rural Municipalities of Ontario. I met with the two of them.

There was one section of the Act, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Gagner was concerned about. There is one section where the Act states that if a drain is repaired down to a point, say, from the centre half of the drain. Only the properties from the area where the repair starts upstream shall be assessed according to the previous Act. The clerk of Dover township left me with the impression that he wanted to look this particular section over. He left me with the impression that it would complicate the work of the clerk. I am going to meet with him again but I would have to say that I do differ with him. I think that’s a very important amendment within the Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a good many drains across this province where the lower to washes out. Once the drain is done, there is no more work needed on it and there is no reason why that particular individual should pay for the drain.

I had a few more comments, Mr. Speaker. I would have to tell you that in small urban centres I have met several people of the farming community who are very happy with Bill 130. Since the drainage report was filed one year ago, I have spoken to many municipal organizations across Ontario which felt that the drainage report was one of the most progressive reports that was ever received in the Ontario legislative assembly.

I have spoken to many of the engineers who are involved in drainage. They are ready to make the new Drainage Act work. Speaking to the contractors’ association recently, I found they are interested in improving the drainage system throughout Ontario and believe that our suggestions which are incorporated in this bill will be a great help not only to improve but accelerating the work. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this is progressive legislation.

May I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee and staff for their help. May I also take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and his staff for the hours that they have put into the section of this bill which is in keeping with the report of the committee. I am sure all members of the House join me in wishing the minister a speedy recovery from his recent illness.

This Act reminds me of a cover on a homemaker’s hook which all members of this assembly received recently, which speaks about aging. On the cover introduction it states, “In the 30s, a time of transition and the time of the hope so.” The member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) would have to comment further on that. “In the 40s, a time of reflection and self-knowledge. Beyond 50, if you have played the game right, the best is yet to come.” I will let the member from Windsor comment later on that. I’m not sure about the member for Kent (Mr. Spence), whether or not he has any comments.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to members of the assembly for the people of Ontario, be they urban or rural, for the agricultural community, the best is yet to come. Many areas of Ontario can make use of this new updated Drainage Act. New lands will be brought into production; lands which were considered marginal in the past will now become highly productive agricultural land and will help solve the food supply for many years to come.

For the people who are aware of the need of land drainage, I take a note from a book I have recently read, one quotation, “To share or not to share. This problem is a controversial one indeed.” The young man goes on to say, “Although I shaved for three years for the past year or so I have been an unshaver and hope to remain so.”

I would suggest to the members that this will happen in the drainage area. There will be people who will not make use of the Drainage Act but the people who do will be doing their part in helping to build Ontario and Canada and in helping the world food supply. They will in return receive very great dividends for their labours. I personally believe that drainage is as important as the tractor that works the ground and the seed one plants in the ground in order to harvest the crop.

Mr. Speaker, I leave you with only one other comment. Last Friday night I had the opportunity to meet with the executive of the Association of Rural Municipalities of Ontario, and I informed them of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the pledge made by the provincial Treasurer to the Municipal Liaison Committee. I am sure we will get a favourable report from that body of people within the upcoming days.

Those in executive posts I spoke to, among the municipal people, suggested to me that they felt this particular bill, the Drainage Act of Ontario, 1975, is very important to all the people of Ontario. To me personally, they urged that we proceed with the passing of this Act. I say to the parliamentary assistant and I would ask him to pass on the very best to his staff. I thank the members and ask for their co-operation in proceeding with the bill. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want this opportunity to go by without adding a few remarks to what the chairman of that select committee on drainage outlined to us; the changes and improvements brought about by the land drainage committee in this new Drainage Act, Bill 130.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I was proud to be named as one of the members of that select committee on drainage. I must say, too, I want to congratulate the chairman on how he carried out his duties. Every one of the members of this Legislature who served on that committee was dedicated to carrying out his duties, to bringing in a drainage report which would be of benefit to the province and to the agricultural industry across the Province of Ontario.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, the chairman has taken a lot of my thunder but, of course, he is very well qualified to do that because he put in many days discussing this new Drainage Act, back and forth, with the members of that select committee. I must say, too, that every one of those members of the drainage committee worked in harmony. The majority of the time we didn’t always agree, but in the final analysis we did come to a decision.

I must say that being a member of the municipal council in the township in which I live, I had quite a bit to do with the old Drainage Act. I did know that the Drainage Act was cumbersome; it was outdated. One of the greatest complaints I had from farmers in many areas of my municipality was that after they read the old Drainage Act it was hard for them to understand what it actually meant. At some of the first meetings of the select committee on drainage it was unanimous among every one of the members that this new Drainage Act should be written in such a way that any ordinary individual could understand it without having to take it to a lawyer or to a municipal clerk to inform them what was in this new Drainage Act.

The committee travelled right across the Province of Ontario and I understand that there were 590 briefs presented to this committee. We met many times, in the afternoons and nights; we met many farmers, many municipal councillors, many county councillors. The reception that we got was excellent. They were interested in the new Drainage Act, they wanted to tell us their problems, and they wanted us to do something about them.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have brought in a new Drainage Act that will be very satisfactory right across the Province of Ontario. It is an Act that you understand when you read it; it is an Act that will speed up drainage on the farms across the province. There were a lot of new recommendations made by the committee and I think the majority of the recommendations are included in this Bill 130.

It is long past time that we had a change in the Drainage Act. We have had some municipal councils that didn’t want any change, but I was one in favour of change and speeding-tip this drainage committee because drainage is of tremendous importance to the agriculture industry of the Province of Ontario. I think the chairman of the select committee said, for example, that once water has been removed from the soil, the soil warms up five times as fast. Mr. Speaker, poorly drained land would take two weeks to become warm enough for germination of seed.

We find today, Mr. Speaker, that we can’t afford to lose a crop. When you have poorly drained land it makes the crop ripen two weeks late. There is a danger of losing the crop through bad weather. Those in the agriculture industry can’t afford to lose a crop at the high cost of input and the high cost of goods.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has outlined the functions of new drainage superintendent who was suggested in the report, but he didn’t say too much about maintenance and repairs and improvements to municipal drains. I was very pleased that we did something about the maintenance of drains in municipalities across this province. When we had to repair a municipal drain, if we spent over $800 we had to call on an engineer to make a report, which delayed the repairing of the municipal drain. If this Act is put into force we can repair a municipal drain in a very short time and give a great benefit at less cost to the taxpayers or to the farmers in the Province of Ontario. That’s one of the recommendations that I’m proud of, that we can speed up drainage. We can repair these municipal drains at very little cost. There is also a drainage superintendent who will make a survey of municipal drains in municipalities across the Province of Ontario and recommend to the municipal councils the drains which need repairing.

There are many things that I could say. I don’t want to rehash or re-echo what the hon. member for Lambton has said because be outlined very well this new Act. I know the people of the province are going to accept this new Act. I haven’t heard too much criticism of it. As it goes into force, I think municipal councils will see a great improvement in drainage. I know we have done everything in this Act to speed up the procedure of drainage. This is what is needed in this day and age. Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I could enlighten or try to rehash what the hon. member for Lambton has said. He went over this Act very well.

We visited many other provinces and places, such as Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Michigan and Quebec. We decided to go to Florida, at the wrong time of the year for comfort, to look into the control of water there. I must say that it was too bad that it was so hot; it bothered many that we were in a hot climate. But even on our trip to Florida I was one on that select committee who actually gained tremendous knowledge from what we saw of the control of water in the land.

When one looks over the programme that they have and class water as a natural resource, I must say when we look at vegetables which are boxed to be shipped to Canada to eat and see the quality of the vegetables, it’s something for us to think about. It can be done in Canada. It can be done in the summer. I must say we were amazed at the quality of the vegetables and fruit which we saw. A lot of the quality was brought about by the water level programme which they had brought about n the State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to take up too much more of the time of the House. My colleague from Essex South (Mr. Paterson) has prepared a tremendous speech and I wouldn’t want to take any of his thunder.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid I won’t be able to wait to hear this tremendous speech from the member for Essex South because I have to be down in committee during the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Henderson: The committee will be there a few days.

Mr. Eaton: Is he not going to wait for my response? They’ll be long speeches.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this bill. As a member of the select committee on land drainage, some of the first realizations we had were of the difficulties inherent in the Drainage Act under which drains of various kinds had been constructed in days gone by. We learned that the Drainage Act was the result of a consolidation of several earlier Drainage Acts, a consolidation which resulted from recommendations of a special advisory committee of some 10 or more years earlier.

One of our earliest decisions was that the Act should be revised, or a new Act should be drafted, in such a way that it would be much easier for laymen, and we suspect lawyers too, to understand. There were expressions not clearly defined, such as the area requiring drainage. There was some doubt under the Act about the status of land. There was some doubt under the Act about the status of land surveyors.

Inflation had made certain financial features out of date; for example, the $100 deposit by a requisitioning farmer and the $2,500 maximum set for a requisition drain. Under the old Act, it was not clear to everyone whether the point of commencement of a drainage scheme was upstream or downstream. However, criticism of the old Act is now irrelevant. Let’s look at Bill 130 which will become known as the Drainage Act, 1975.

One omission in the bill is the automatic requirement of an environmental impact statement, however brief, whenever a drainage works is proposed. According to section 3, subsection 8, of this bill such an environmental statement is mandatory in the case of a requisition drain but according to section 6, subsections 1, 2 and 3, and section 10, subsection 1, an environmental impact appraisal seems optional for a petition drain. Because requisition drains are much smaller -- with a maximum of $7,500 now suggested by the bill -- than petition drains, it would seem logical to reverse the procedure. That is, make an environmental appraisal mandatory for large drains -- that is petition drains -- and optional for the smaller ones -- that is the requisition drains.

I note also that the environmental appraisal is to be made by the engineer not, as the select committee recommended, by a committee of three persons appointed by the local council and consisting of a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Environment, under the chairmanship of an impartial ratepayer resident in the municipality.

Although the committee saw no great environmental threats in most drainage schemes, it did not rule out the possibility that large numbers of drains might have an adverse cumulative effect. I should appreciate a comment from the parliamentary assistant on this aspect of the bill: (a) why the environmental appraisal is left to the engineer, and (b) why the environmental appraisal is optional for large drains and mandatory for small ones.

In the interim report of the select committee on land drainage, one of our recommendations was that requisition drafts be made eligible for grants under section 62 of the old Drainage Act yet section 85 of this new 1975 bill, which outlines the grants, does not apply to requisition drains, This is my second question, Mr. Speaker: Why not?

I find that section 95 perpetuates the office of drainage commissioner. As I recall the discussions of the committee, the office of drainage commissioner, which was often a sinecure for which an honorarium was paid, was to be absorbed into the office of drainage superintendent. This concept has not been passed on to the framers of this bill with the result that Bill 130 provides for a drainage commissioner with “fees and other remuneration.”

If section 95 applies only to those areas such as the Erieau marsh, where land is below lake level and must be kept drained by pumping equipment, and if section 95 means that such drainage superintendents are to be called “commissioners” in these areas, we should be told so. I ask for a comment by the parliamentary assistant who is piloting this bill through the House.

Certainly the committee had no intention of creating the post of drainage superintendents as well as the post of drainage commissioners. It seems to me that the title of commissioner should be abolished and all drainage supervisory duties put in the hands of a person known as the drainage superintendent.

One of the recommendations of the select committee was that a drainage appeal tribunal should be created to replace the county court judge and the referee in the appeal procedure. The government has gone part way in this respect, creating a drainage tribunal, but it still retains the referee. We had recommended that the tribunal operation should be, and I quote, “expeditious, easily accessible, flexible and informal,” and that the tribunal should have -- I again quote -- “necessary expertise to handle questions of an assessment engineering or legal nature as they arise.”

The referee has 19 sections of the Act devoted to him, from sections 101 to 119, with section 105 outlining his powers. The powers of the tribunal, on the other hand are not mentioned in the four sections, 97 to 100, under the heading “The Ontario Drainage Tribunal.” If it were not for the explanatory notes, Nos. 8 and 9, it would be very difficult for a layman to know to whom he should go with an appeal, even after reading section 47 and subsequent sections under the heading of “Appeals.”

Explanatory note No. 8 says:

“The Ontario Drainage Tribunal is established to hear appeals on the technical aspects of drainage. This authority was previously vested partly in the referee and partly in a county court judge.”

Explanatory note No. 9 says:

“The referee will now hear only appeals dealing essentially with questions of law.”

So the advice of the committee has been ignored on this point. Instead of an informal appeal tribunal capable of dealing with questions of assessment, engineering and the law, all three facets involved in drainage problems, as recommended by the select committee, we now have three places to go with appeals -- the court of revision for change in assessment; the drainage tribunal on technical aspects; and the referee on legal aspects. Mr. Speaker, you will pity the poor farmer who has to make an appeal on all three grounds. Under the heading of “The Ontario Drainage Tribunal” there should be some reference in the four sections, 97 to 100, to the powers of the tribunal, which are outlined away back in section 51. Surely some reference could be made as a kind of cross-reference.

Similarly, there is a heading, “Courts of Revision,” followed by section 96, but there is no indication here what the powers or duties of these courts may be. One infers from section 55 that a court of revision can review and change an assessment, but section 56 implies that the drainage tribunal also may change an assessment. It was the select committee’s hope that the new Act would enable a layman to find under each heading either the complete information on each subject -- for example, drainage tribunal or courts of revision -- or, at the very least, all the cross-references that would provide this complete information.

In this respect, Bill 130 does not live up to our expectations. The drainage tribunal can receive appeals from the court of revision and appeals from its own decisions can be taken to the referee, according to section 105, subsection 2, despite statements in section 54, subsection 3, and section 100 that “the decision of the tribunal is final.”

I should appreciate some explanation from the parliamentary assistant on this apparent contradiction. I realize, of course, that in legal terms things aren’t always what they seem, but this certainly is going to be confusing to those who read the Act. I very much fear that Bill 130 may have complicated the appeal procedure instead of simplifying it, as the select committee was so anxious to have done. In support of this view, I refer members to section 118 of the bill which says:

“Where an action is brought or is pending before the court of revision or the tribunal or the referee and the matter should properly be heard by one of the other tribunals, the action may be transferred to the other tribunal without invalidating the proceedings, provided the action was launched within the time limits prescribed in this Act.”

The framers of this Act actually foresee that appeals are going to end up in the wrong room or the wrong court. Section 118 is a new section designed to explain what has to be done when someone or when everyone gets so confused in the appeal process that complainants or appellants appeal to the wrong authority. Surely when this possibility of confusion is foreseen, it should have been averted.

This was the whole thrust of the select committee’s recommendation, namely, (1) keep the court of revision only for appeals against the assessment worked out by the engineer, and (2) establish a drainage appeal tribunal to replace the county Court judge and the referee in the appeal procedures. The select committee recommended that the petition procedure be speeded up, simplified and based on public participation. As far as I can tell, Mr. Speaker, this bill will accomplish this very important objective.

The member for Lambton has covered other highlights of this bill which I shall not bother to repeat. I shall conclude by saying simply that we support Bill 130.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, I followed with interest the remarks of the chairman of the select committee, the member for Lambton, and of my colleagues from Kent and Sandwich-Riverside. I compliment them on their remarks in explaining some of the details of this new bill that is before us, as they see them, and relaying some of the questions and queries and doubts that may arise when we get into the clause-by-clause discussion of this particular bill.

In viewing the 128 sections of this particular Act, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are almost 100 different principles that could be enunciated in second reading of the bill. These are basic changes from the old Act that has been in force for many years in our province. I think the main principle, Mr. Speaker, is the very fundamental redirection of both procedures and policy that’s going to affect the total land mass of the Province of Ontario. I think we must underline that it affects each and every acre in the agricultural zones of our province and even into the far north where as yet we don’t have agricultural production to any extent.

I believe that the explanatory note regarding the word “benefit” sums up all the implications to all persons in the Province of Ontario. I might just read this into the record:

“In this Act, ‘benefit’ means the advantages to any lands, roads, buildings or other structures from the construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of a drainage works such as will result in a higher market value or increased crop production or improved appearance or better control of surface or subsurface water or any other advantages relating to the betterment of lands, roads, buildings or other structures.”

This, in fact, Mr. Speaker, affects people to a great extent residing within a few blocks of the Legislature here in the city of Toronto. It’s not strictly an agricultural bill, it has implications for everyone in our province and indeed beyond.

I think this Act is really important as the first stepping stone toward water management in our province and in our country in our long-range future; and I think the philosophy that will come forth from the application of this Act, and from the redirection and impetus we are giving to land drainage, will be an initial step toward eventual water management in our province. Certainly I feel conservation and ecology have been given more than a token input into the writing of this new Act, and I think that this too is very important in our long-range future.

The Act has been drawn up in a manner to remove many of the inconsistencies and illogical sequences that were evident to the members of the select committee. Hopefully we have written the Act so that the average man can understand the steps and procedures. Those of us on the committee can understand this, I think, and we do trust that our colleagues who have not spent the many hours in discussing and helping formulate the recommendations will be able to understand this, as well as their constituents.

We feel that the alternatives and responsibilities of councils in their activities are going to be streamlined, with clear-cut procedure , so that there will be no blind roadways in which a petitioner for drainage will find himself, as he has in the past. In fact, we believe we are going to expedite drainage whenever it is found necessary in our province.

We have changed the role of the engineer. I think we have clarified his position and, in my opinion, I think he will now more truly be the servant of the people and the councils, rather than being the unquestioned dictatorial authority, as was the case in many situations in many areas of the province over many years.

All in all, after reading this Act both backwards and forwards to try to check for any loopholes or thoughts that may have been neglected or overstated in terms of our recommendations, and restudying this particular document section by section, I think the amendments in the new sections of the Act appear to be almost 100 per cent in line with the recommendations of the select committee.

Because of the deep involvement for many hours by the member for Kent and myself on behalf of the Liberal Party in studying the old Act, making many on-site inspections to see the problems at first hand, the meetings with the councils, interested persons and the professional people involved in all aspects of drainage -- that is, from the tile operator who is laying the tile right in the trench, to the engineer, the solicitor -- and, more important, the hours our committee spent meeting with the aggrieved, confused and frustrated citizens, I think we have gained an overall picture of the inconsistencies in the old Act. All of this has led to the recommendations that we made in our published edition.

In view of all these facts, I personally have no hesitation in recommending to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that they accept the many principles enunciated in this bill and that we approve second reading at this time.

Going through the bill, I won’t deal with all the principles that one could speak on today, but I will follow the bill in sequence as best I can.

In section 1 of the bill, there are three matters or principles on which I would like to comment. The first is the appointment of a director for the purposes of this Act. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a very important principle as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has had no real authority in dealing with drainage matters up to now. But now there will be an authority, an authority with expertise, who can make certain judgements and take certain actions.

In the past, in the construction of some drains, the provincial share of the cost just flowed automatically. There were no questions asked. Now, we will have a director with teeth and force who can question any excessive costs of oversizing or superfluous work on a drain. That possibly has occurred in the past and possibly could occur in the future. I think this is good. Further, the Act states the director on behalf of the minister can initiate drains where they are necessary for agricultural purposes. I am sure that this is going to eliminate many frustrating situations for bona fide farmers requiring land drainage.

Also, the director will be collecting data on the myriad of drains criss-crossing our province, I think that it is most important to retain and develop these files as we gradually move toward total water management in our province. There are many more duties and obligations that could be discussed concerning the director of drainage. But I think the new principle that we now have such a person with authority to guide, counsel, initiate and co-ordinate is one of the most important fundamental principles of this particular bill.

The second principle in this first section, though possibly of minor importance, is very significant to those involved. That is the clarification or expansion of the interpretation of the word “engineer.” Under the new Act, the word “engineer” can now mean a corporation or partnership of a professional engineer or land surveyor. The committee was presented with evidence concerning the frustrations of the old Act, which restricted the meaning of an engineer to only a professional engineer or an Ontario land surveyor, and not to a partner or an employee of a corporation. I think this is an important principle that will be welcomed by the engineering and land surveying community.

The third principle in section 1 concerns the appointment of the Ontario Drainage Tribunal. Basically, I guess I am opposed to the proliferation of more boards and commissions and tribunals just as a matter of philosophy. Our committee discussed, reviewed and heard countless briefs concerning the present appellant system. Basically, Mr. Speaker, I think we found that the average citizen making an appeal was placed in an unfamiliar setting, that of almost a formal court setting, with all the odds seemingly stacked against his practical experiences by virtue of the professional advice and procedures of this court. This is why. I have overcome my basic objection to another tribunal or commission being appointed. I support this particular principle of a drainage tribunal which we hope will provide an informal setting with simplicity of procedure, and expedite the hearings to give justice to our citizens involved in drainage disputes.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to requisition drains, through this new bill we are increasing the cost limits more in line with today’s construction costs. We have also extended the area where these works can be undertaken. I believe a significant principle written into the bill is the fact that the costs of crossing land owned by a road authority or a public utility are not to be included in these particular limits. To me, this section clearly validates the position that a utility or road is, in fact, an artificial barrier to the normal drainage pattern of an area and places the onus for financial cost on the utility or the road authority. In this section, we have included a clause that the road authority or the utility must be notified of a proposed on-site meeting to examine a drainage project.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is only fair to the road authority or utility as it will give them time to offer a possible alternate solution that is more beneficial to them and possibly can be accommodated in the drainage scheme itself. They can take the appropriate steps for this type of construction and financing to suit their own needs.

The other factor in this particular section, Mr. Speaker, is a requirement that a property owner filing for a requisition drain must make a deposit of $300 to defray expenses. I think the committee felt that the adoption of this principle would eliminate any frivolous or nuisance undertakings, as have occurred in the past.

Most of the work of the committee evolved around the area of petition drains. Here, again, the new Act makes certain fundamental changes in principle, which I feel should be a benefit to the procedures as such. For the first time, owners of 60 per cent of the land ta be drained can now proceed without being stopped by a majority of numbers of small landowners. I think this is very significant. These small landowners may or may not have an interest in agricultural drainage. I think we found that this was a very important principle and essential to our agricultural community.

Also included in this section is the principle that under certain circumstances the new director can initiate a drain if it is required for agricultural purposes. Evidence that came to us was presented in such a light that we felt it necessary that these powers should be given to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to initiate a drainage programme in these circumstances.

Also included in this section on petition drains is requirement that the area conservation authority or Ministry of Natural Resources must be notified within 30 days that a petition drain has been filed. I think this is important for ecological considerations and for our long-term objectives leading to water management. The fact that environment appraisal of the effects of a proposed drainage works may be requested by the initiating municipality, the conservation authority or Ministry of Natural Resources, fortifies our ecological and long-term objectives in this regard.

Similarly, a benefit cost statement can be requested and this is essential to protect the taxpayers in making a final determination as to the feasibility of a drainage project.

The fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources or the conservation authority may request an environmental study means, of course, that the province will be paying the cost of the study -- if I interpret the bill correctly. However, in section 7, subsection 2, if the local council obtains the benefit cost study on its own initiative, the cost “shall be paid by the municipality from its general Funds.”

Here I believe one of the recommendation of the select committee was not fulfilled. This recommendation was “that the ministry subsidize the cost of preliminary reports within the normal grant structure now available for construction of drainage works.” Reading this section my interpretation, whether I’m correct or not, is that if the works proceed with an environmental study, the costs would be part of the total cost of the drainage project and would obtain the subsidy. However, if the environmental study and other factors led to a negative reaction to this proposal, the council and its ratepayers would have to bear the total cost of the study. Possibly the parliamentary assistant could clarify this particular matter for myself. This may be a minor point, as basically the committee hoped that this type of study would only involve a few hundred dollars at the most. But I think it is a matter should be clarified.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important principles contained in this section is the requirement for the engineer, through the clerk, to call an at-the-site meeting and at that time to determine the area requiring drainage. I think this is an excellent principle that the House should accept, for at that time the people concerned with drainage can advise the engineer of any special things that are affecting their particular property. The engineer will be able to validate their petition or tell them what is required to validate their position. At this point there can be all that personal input that will eliminate any future wrangling on a drain, provided those works are carried out in accordance with the people’s wishes as expressed at that on-site meeting.

There are three areas of principle regarding assessments that deserve a few comments. The first is that lands, roads and buildings that are increased in value or are more easily maintained as a result of drainage works may be assessed for benefit. This is a new section in the Act, and I’m sure it will be accepted by the House. Also the clause whereby the engineer may assess for special benefit is a new clause that I think is good. This, in effect, would allow special works that really have no effect on the functioning of a drainage work to be constructed at the time of the work on the drain and assessed to the individual property or properties that have requested this work. To me, it makes good sense to carry these out at the time of construction.

The final principle in this section that deserves support is that block assessments will now be allowed by law. I think evidence given to our committee proved to us that on an individual basis it often costs more to prepare and mail out documents to groups of small property owners than there would be if there were assessment on the drainage repair works. We believe that some block assessments were done in the past without formal legal authority. Having this written into the Act, should be a boon to urban municipalities involved at the end of a drainage scheme and should make it much more flexible and easy for their municipal clerks to carry out the duties and appropriate the necessary funds.

Another section, Mr. Speaker, that has been amended and that will benefit many urban dwellers, as well as many rural property owners is that compensation will now be paid for damage to ornamental trees and landscaping. I know when certain projects are going to go forth that is one of the concerns of the people who take pride in their property and up to now they haven’t been able to obtain remuneration for destruction during construction. I am sure that this will again help smooth out or facilitate the undertakings of works in any given area.

An important principle is contained in section 39 of the bill with the introduction of time limits placed upon the engineer to file his report, within six months, unless an extension is given to him by the council. Too often in the past persons desperately requiring drainage have had their efforts pigeonholed by neglect or overwork of an engineering firm.

Another point in this particular section is that the council has now been given power to fire an engineer without any remuneration for work he has done to that point, provided he does not live up to the obligations that were originally placed on him.

One section -- I believe it is section 55 -- is especially appealing to me and I am sure will be pleasing to the average citizen in our province. This is the principle requiring an engineer to give his evidence before an appellant presents his case. Too often in the past the evidence of the professional engineer before a professional judge and jury outweighed the lack of expertise of an ordinary citizen trying to present his case as best he could. I think this will be of benefit to the average citizen in Ontario.

Another safeguard to our people who petition for a drain is the right to force council action in cases of undue delay. Now, a petitioner may appeal to the tribunal, or to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if there is undue delay by the council.

My learned colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, has discussed the matter of drainage commissioners, and I am afraid I can’t agree with his remarks as I do have an area that has three separate commissions in it -- the Point Pelee marsh area. They have a particular and personal interest in the workings of their particular drainage scheme; they do come under the direction of an appointed township drainage supervisor at the present time. But I would respectfully hope that these sections could be kept in; that areas that require pumping systems may maintain these commissions and commissioners, as the small amount of remuneration is almost nil as compared to the hours and interest that they put in on behalf of their fellow citizens on that particular drainage scheme.

Another important clause or principle that has been written into the Act is section 64. This allows a property owner who is dissatisfied with the quality of construction during construction, or up to one year after the construction has been completed, to appeal to the tribunal for redress. I know cases have come to me from Essex county complaining about the quality of work, and there appeared no way out for individuals affected.

I think the several new sections written into this Act, as I have just enunciated, give justice to the average citizen. I know this was the wish of the committee. Section 73 has been delineated in my mind as a very important section and this is the principle that the council and the operation of a municipal office has an obligation to all the ratepayers in the township or municipality in relation to drainage matters.

I’m pleased that the costs of special council meetings should not be included as a special cost in the overall cost of a drainage works. Certainly the council and the officers of a municipality have a responsibility to all the citizens and should bear some costs. In that same regard, dealing with the special fees that in the past have been paid to the clerk for his extra work, I think the committee was unanimous in feeling that this was a total municipal obligation and that these particular costs should not be borne solely by the drain in question.

The major change in the direction given by this particular Act is a fundamental change which I hope will save the taxpayers of our province thousands and, indeed, millions of dollars in the future. I base this on the very important principle contained in the sections on maintenance of drains.

One of the most shocking things I found -- and I’m sure it is etched in the minds of all the members of the committee -- was the evidence presented to us through the length and breadth of our province that the drains were often neglected and allowed to go into disrepair in order that they might qualify for subsidy grants from the province, rather than carrying out a normal, proper and continuous programme of maintenance.

The fact that grants will be given under this Act for maintenance, upon the recommendation of a drainage superintendent in the long run should save our province millions of dollars; at the same time, it will keep the drains working, a fact we shouldn’t forget.

To fortify this, another principle that had to be included was that one or more municipalities can hire a qualified drainage superintendent whose cost will be subsidized at the rate of 50 per cent by the province. I think this is commendable. It is important, too, that these drainage superintendents have been given the powers to enter land just as were given to the engineer.

The last principle with which I would like to deal this afternoon is that contained in section 123. This section now allows a council to request of the minister the right to do emergency work before obtaining an engineer’s report. I feel that this particular section will be used very infrequently but it is essential, as I have learned in the past, to expedite emergency works in relation to drainage matters. In the past couple of years, with the serious flooding on the Great Lakes and the action that was required in the township of Mersea, in the county of Essex, we were able to save many hundreds of acres of valuable farmland because we were able to proceed through ARDA to carry out works before any necessary petitions and so forth were carried out.

Mr. Speaker, I have commented on many but not all the principles contained in this bill. I am pleased that the ministry has seen fit to adopt almost all of the recommendations of our select committee. These fundamental changes to help expedite drainage, to protect the environment and to give justice to the average citizen, are very important. I’m pleased to have played a role in the development of this new Drainage Act, and I trust that it will serve the people of the province for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, one must be congratulatory in two areas in regard to this bill: (1) in the depth of the investigation by the select committee and (2) the expeditious manner in which the report was handled by the government.

I’ve been around for quite a while and I have sat on a few select committees and I have read many select committee reports. A lot of them still sit on the shelves of the government somewhere without being given the attention they deserve. I am happy.

I know one might think the Drainage Act or talking about providing for proper drainage procedures in the Province of Ontario was an insignificant objective but we have to realize that the bill itself -- I haven’t read the details of it; I have skimmed through it and I have read the explanatory notes -- in my estimation, listening to the speeches by the members who sat on the committee, goes hand-in-hand with proper planning and official planning. It is something this province has been lacking for years but we are coming to the point of having a provincial official plan; we are working on it. It’s a slow process. In my opinion also many areas of the province which are the responsibility of the regional governments are a little lax in coming to the point of having proper work done on an official plan to make the province what it should be.

I think we should be a little bit aware of a bill of this type. it is lengthy; very detailed; the machinations to implement it are going to be great; and it is going to necessitate a great deal of co-operation and closeness in many areas of administration if the bill is going to avoid the bureaucratic red tape which many of these types of operations entail. The move to regional government in the province makes that more so. I have had some experience with people who have applied for a building permit to put an adjacent building on to their property and the red tape and the procrastination in receiving a permit nowadays would drive one completely up the wall.

I know one party who advanced through the area council, through the regional council, and figured she had done all she needed to do to get a permit to go ahead with adding to her property. Then she found she had to make application to the conservation authority which meant three trips to Galt to talk to the conservation authority. They had not received plans which had been submitted in the first place. There were five sets of plans submitted by this one person to get permission to build on her property.

I would hope those who are responsible for piloting this bill, putting it into shape for operation, making sure that the regulations are in tune with what is needed -- one could hardly imagine what regulations would be needed with a bill as detailed as this one. It calls for the Lieutenant Governor to set up regulations to make the bill work. I hope the regulations will provide something I haven’t found in the bill -- that is, the instruction that there must be a complete follow-through and a connection with all the various departments involved in any kind of a project which takes place.

I notice, for instance, there is only one slight reference to the conservation authority and that is section 49 which says:

“Where the proposed drainage works is to be undertaken within a watershed in which a conservation authority has jurisdiction, the authority may appeal from the report of the engineer to the tribunal on the ground that the drainage works will injuriously affect a scheme undertaken by the authority under the Conservation Authorities Act, and in every case a written notice of appeal shall be served within 40 days after the mailing of the notices under section 41, R.S.O. 1970, chapter 136, section 35 amended.

I would think that is not good enough. As soon as the preliminary investigation has started, these people should be notified. Conservation authorities in any jurisdiction should be notified that preliminary engineering has started for a project in this particular location so that the authorities will be on top of it. They could maybe contact the engineer immediately and say he had better watch this condition because he is going to run into trouble. Then they would not find what I found in many cases where one thinks he has everything settled until finally ha gets a nice little letter from the conservation authorities saying he had better come up and see them because they’ve got something to say about this. This would work right down through all of the various sections of administration across the province.

The regulations are going to make it work properly. The lack of red tape, the cooperation and the cohesiveness of many departments, once they start a drainage project, are going to be the proof of the pudding of the worth of the bill. I know of the depths to which the committee went to investigate end find out what the problems were. They were lengthy. I am happy that the government has moved expeditiously in drafting such a long bill. I think both should be congratulated.

But I do hope that we won’t find it another red tape bill that will add more to the effect of implementing the Drainage Act. There’s going to be cost to the municipalities and there’s going to be cost to individuals. There are going to be decisions to be made on the split of the cost between area municipalities and regional municipalities. The Environmental Assessment Act is going to be involved in it. There has to be a cohesive understanding to avoid the red tape, the bottlenecks and the slowness of the implementation of this Act, if those kinds of problems aren’t given attention to.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about this bill. My colleagues have talked about its provisions at some length and I don’t want to repeat them. I just want to say that in general tenses I think this is a good bill. I want to pay tribute to the select committee because I think they did a real service in this particular area. Their studies have indeed proved very worthwhile when one takes a look at the recommendations in their report and then takes a look at the provisions under this bill. Much of the report has been implemented by way of this particular bill and I certainly think that the committee has done a real service for the people of the province in providing a streamlined procedure whereby people in the province can undertake drainage projects.

Really there are two points I wish to make with respect to this bill. The first one has to do with the overall problem of drainage and how we should view it. I recognize full well the great importance of drainage and particularly farm drainage. I understand and appreciate fully the fact that much of the farmland which we have in production today is only in production because of adequate drainage.

Had it not been for drainage, our total farm production in this province certainly wouldn’t come anywhere near what it is today.

Having said that, I have really only one caveat with respect to drainage and that has arisen within the last year as far as I am concerned. It comes mainly from a conversation with my local conservation authority and with other people who are knowledgeable in this area who have determined, for instance, in the area from which I come that a heavy rainfall of, say, 3 in. of rain in a fairly concentrated period of time will result in a flash flood simply because, according to the conservation authority, farm drainage has reached the point where vast areas of land are now drained, which means that when we have a heavy rainfall, all of that water rushes into the rivers and the streams at an accelerated rate, causing a flash flood.

I simply put that in that context because I want to inquire from my friend, the parliamentary assistant, what studies if any have been done to determine when we reach a point of overdraining. If and when we do reach that point, what particular courses of action is the ministry prepared to take?

I happen to hold to the view that we shouldn’t drain every nook and cranny in this province. I think there is a balance there; I think there has to be a balance there. I think we must have a certain percentage of land in marsh or in water-holding areas so that we don’t encounter this kind of thing to the extent that apparently we are encountering in certain areas of the province.

I realize full well that there are many areas of the province that don’t have adequate drainage, such as eastern Ontario, perhaps areas in the southern part of the province, Essex and Kent and so on, and perhaps other areas as well. I’m wondering, though -- I’m becoming a little worried about this -- whether the ministry is undertaking any studies or analyses, to determine the optimum point at which the drainage programme should slow down. The optimum point having been reached, the ministry should take another look at some of the drainage programmes in that particular area. That’s not to say that they wouldn’t continue to encourage drainage projects in other parts of the province where the optimum hasn’t been reached.

I just wonder whether or not we should be taking a look at this kind of thing in view of the very intensive programmes undertaken by some conservation authorities with respect to flood-plain mapping. That’s a thorn in the side that I don’t want to get into, because when you transfer the theory to the practical, then you run into all kinds of problems. We have situations in our part of the country where the conservation authority has undertaken flood-plain mapping and it has placed entire farms in the flood plain, which means that the farmer can’t build a shed, he can’t build an addition to his barn, he can’t do anything. I think the cure becomes even worse than the disease under those circumstances.

I put that to the parliamentary assistant because I want to try to get some assurance that there are the checks and balances in the system which would give us some sort of assurance that we’re just not going ahead full throttle in draining every square inch of land we can get our hands on.

The other point I want to comment upon in relation to this particular bill is the appeals procedure. I must say that when I read this through, I was somewhat confused; however, having heard some of the speeches, I think I have it clearly in my mind now.

As I understand it, there are three avenues of appeal. The first one has to do with the court of revision, which deals solely with the assessments, as I understand it. Then there is the Ontario Drainage Tribunal, which deals with the technical aspects of the project. If the person who is affected by this project says, “I feel that the drain should go 500 ft to the south,” and he feels that he can make a good case with that, then he would take that to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal, as I understand it.

The referee, on the other hand, deals only with matters of law with respect to whether the four corners of the law are being replied in regard to the Act itself. If there is any divergence, it is up to the referee to so find and to make recommendations to have it corrected. Cost is the function of the referee, as I understand it. He deals only with matters of law.

Now, it seems to me that particular system, while I understand it was the proposal of the drainage committee to simplify all of this, seems to be unnecessarily complicated. I think that the landowner or the farmer should only have to worry about, at the most, two different stages of appeal, rather than to try and sort out whether he is worried about a technical matter, hence he would have to go to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal, or if he is worried about a question of law he has got to try and sort that out and decide that he has to go to the referee. And then, of course, there are the matters having to do with the court of revision, which mainly pertain to the assessments under the terms of the Act.

It seems to me that there must be a simpler apneal procedure, other than the one in the bill. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give that some thought. I think there could be some confusion on the part of people who are not learned in the law and who are not, perhaps, very conversant with the Act. Generally, if the matter were simplified, I think it would be to the advantage of the great majority of people, who are really ordinary people in the sense that they are not learned in the law and they are not, perhaps, very conversant with the Act.

The other point, and the final point which I want to raise, comes in the form of a question. When will this Act be in force? I notice that it comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, rather than on receiving royal assent.

I presume that the purpose of that is to establish the Ontario Drainage Tribunal and to get the personnel in place, and so on. But my concern is that I would hope that the Act would not be put on the shelf for a number of months before it is proclaimed. I think it is important that the Act go into force as quickly as possible. I am just wondering what sort of time-frame the parliamentary assistant has in mind before the Act is named by proclamation.

I think those are all the comments that I have, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I was most pleased to see the number of members who have participated in the discussion on second reading of this bill. I think it indicates some of the importance placed on this bill, especially by the rural members who have participated, because there probably is no more technical tool available to us in agriculture today than farm drainage for increasing crop yields across this province. I think we are looking for breakthroughs all the time to increase yields and increase production, and we know at times we may get these. Here is one that is at hand. It’s a tool we have available and which probably isn’t made enough use of across the province.

I think we found in our travels on the select committee that in many areas there were people who were waiting to use it and who wanted to use it but who were being held back by councils which perhaps didn’t understand the Act. In our travels as a select committee we probably created quite an interest in the use of farm drainage and municipal drains across the province. I think the committee and the committee chairman can take full credit for the stimulation of this and the interest that it has brought about. I know that many of the members who spoke were members of that committee. They have made a number of mentions of some of our travels, some of the places we were and the fine hearings we had in the province.

I think the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) made reference to the fact probably there was no greater democratic participation in developing legislation than what took place in the development of the drainage legislation and the input that was brought in through our committee. I think the member for Hamilton East mentioned the way in which this legislation has been worked at since the report was brought in, that it hasn’t been allowed to sit on the shelf, and that most of the recommendations of this committee are being developed in the Act. They are not all there, but I would say that probably no committee report that has been presented to this Legislature has had more of its report adopted than what has been adopted in the legislation that we have brought forth from the land drainage committee’s report.

To comment more specifically, I am not going to go into all the sections and say all the good things I think are in there. I think many of the members have covered that, particularly the chairman of the committee who is well-versed on land drainage, having participated not just as chairman of this committee, but many years back in his own municipality on council in developing probably one of the most extensive drainage systems of any county, in Lambton. He commented on many of the sections of the report that are being adopted in this legislation, as did many of the other members of the committee. They mentioned a number of the good things that they have seen in it.

There were a number of questions raised, however. This is the area that I would like to dwell on for a few minutes to try to clear up some of the points that have been raised through questions. I refer particularly to several raised by the member for Sandwich-Riverside, regarding certain segments of the report, certain recommendations that may not have been adopted.

First of all, I would refer to the recommendation on an environmental hearing and the fact that an environmental hearing is compulsory in the case of requisitioned drains, but not in the case of other drains. We felt it should be optional to the councils to make this decision in the case of most drainage, the reason being that in many areas I don’t think there is any question. As we travelled, we had this discussion all the time about white areas, the black areas and the grey areas, as far as what should be drained and what shouldn’t. We have left it in the hands of the local council to make that decision in the case of the drains, with the exception of requisitioned drains.

In doing this, we have also given the Ministry of Natural Resources the option to call for an environmental hearing. In making it compulsory on requisitioned drains, it was felt that these drains are put in often when there is controversy. It’s a case of one person forcing a drain across someone else’s property and for that reason we felt that we would require that it be a compulsory report included with the engineer’s report.

We are not particularly expecting the engineer to do that report himself. In some cases he could comment on it, because it might be a fairly clear-cut case. But in other cases he would have some people from our ministry or from Natural Resources come in, make comments and develop a report on how they feel it will have an impact on the environment. Those are the particular reasons we have followed that course.

The other question he raised was regarding the grants for requisitioned drains. Here again, we differed slightly from the report of the committee, the reason being that since we raised the level to $7,500 and since about 40 per cent of the drains installed in the province could come under that figure, we could find that because they are going to get a grant on them, everything would be taken care of in the same way as is the case with petition drains. We would have many people doing this automatically and forcing a drain through, rather than consulting with their neighbours, going through the proper petition procedure and bringing the drain about in that way.

Our reason for not allowing the grant on that basis is, as I say, so that we won’t have 40 per cent of the drains coming under this procedure rather than through a proper petition. It really leaves this as the procedure to follow where someone is just not going to accept a drain going through a particular area and they are not going to work with the applicant on a petition; and we are going to have the environmental report as part of the report.

Another question the member raised was in regard to the commissioner and the superintendent. In that regard I think the member for Essex South made a remark pertinent to his area -- and to this member’s area too, I guess -- in regard to the marshes. The commissioners operate in regard to certain situations on the marsh and we anticipate leaving them there. We also anticipate, as the hon. member realizes, that the superintendents will be optional to the communities. There may be areas where a drain put into a township might be the only drain that has gone into that township, and they can appoint a commissioner to look after that.

Examining the bill for that, because I thought it was in there, I find that isn’t quite covered properly, so we may have an amendment to clarify that when we get to committee.

Another point raised by the member and, I believe, by the member for Huron-Bruce was the appeals. I think I would like to cover the whole situation on appeals, which was raised by several members and try to clarify it.

First of all, the appeal to the court of revision is one that has been there and one that we are retaining. That’s on the assessment. It’s quite direct, it’s quite local and I think most people understand that now. That will still carry on that way. However, prior to that, if they weren’t happy with that, they had no recourse.

Under the terms of this bill, if they do want to appeal that assessment, they can appeal it to the tribunal rather than go the court route. Of course, this is true with technical things involving the drain. I think someone mentioned the possibility of someone feeling the drain should be moved over 500 ft; technical thinks like this will go to the tribunal. I don’t feel it’s all that complicated, because personally I believe that for most people, who may not even be appealing their assessment but who feel they are aggrieved in some way, their recourse at that time is the tribunal. They don’t have to consider the referee because they can take their case to the tribunal. Then if the tribunal thinks it’s law, the tribunal can automatically refer it to the referee without any loss as far as the person’s rights are concerned.

We really see two steps here. There is the appeal of assessment right at the local level, which is something everyone understands now. If they have anything else, they --

Mr. Gaunt: What if it is half and half, half law and half technical?

Mr. Eaton: They would still appeal their assessment at that time. They could appeal their assessment. If they have something which they think involves law, they can go to the tribunal. The tribunal can decide to hear that and give recommendations. Then if it is not acceptable, they have still that right of appeal in law to the referee. The tribunal can really make some comments and make a recommendation or a ruling on something which, I suppose, entails law in some way there. But if the person still doesn’t feel it’s right or the other side doesn’t feel it’s right they would have that course of appeal to the referee who sits in place of a court really.

I don’t feel the steps are really too complicated there. The steps are laid down. Someone made reference, I think, to the fact they couldn’t find the sections on the rights of the tribunal -- now I can’t find them either. Here we are -- the powers of the tribunal are in section 51. The powers of the court of revision are set out in sections 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56.

Further on that, I think the member for Sandwich-Riverside raised the question of the right to change the assessment, and certainly the tribunal does have that. That’s really the person’s course of appeal if they don’t accept what has been ruled on by the local assessment appeal board. I think it does indicate the decisions of the tribunal are final regarding the technical things -- the assessment and so on -- but on the matter of law the course is open for them to take the channels; really the court is the referee at that point.

I think that covers most of the points the member for Sandwich-Riverside raised.

To get to some points raised by the member for Huron-Bruce, the member raised questions regarding studies which might be carried on by the ministry as to what is the limit of drainage really; how far can we go in drainage? I would have to say I’m certainly not aware, at this point, of studies we have which can show what the limit of drainage is. Certainly I agree with what he said about not draining every piece of land in the province; there should be some lands, probably, left for marsh, for water holding areas, etc. This is the reason we have brought in the section which allows the environmental hearing. There may be areas which should be left and if the council in its wisdom thinks it should be, the council can ask for a hearing on it and have it studied. It can be declared that that area shouldn’t be drained and the drain can be stopped on that basis.

I think the member’s concerns are well founded. I think all the members of that committee had the same feelings and this is why the report came forth with that recommendation in it. That’s why we’re accepting that recommendation.

In regard to whether or not drainage really increases the potential for a flood at a particular time is a questionable thing. I think perhaps there should be some studies on it. It’s one that’s pretty hard to measure. Certainly, some of the surface water is going to get away quicker. We’re going to find water permeating through the soil much faster, too, because if the subdrainage has been working the ground is likely going to have more capacity to hold water. More will soak into the ground and be delayed a day or two before getting off the ground; it’s going to go through the tiling system and permeate that soil. There’s likely to be as much surface water which is going to have a quick runoff effect, In that way it could be some advantage against certain flood conditions.

We would certainly hope that any studies we do aren’t, as the member indicated, like some the conservation authorities have done. As he says, they’ve declared areas of whole farms where one couldn’t build a building. We certainly don’t subscribe to that and we feel that somewhere there’s a happy medium on these things. By putting in certain checks and balances in regard to the environmental hearings, we feel that perhaps we can find the proper median on those.

I believe the member for Essex-South raised a question in regard to the cost of environmental hearings.

In our recommendations in developing the bill, we were considering these costs and whether they should be applied to the cost of the drain, or if the people responsible for carrying out the hearings should be the ones that are responsible for it. It was our feeling that the environmental hearings were being carried out on behalf of all of society. If the council felt that an environmental report be made on a drain, then they should be responsible for the cost. It would be spread over the total township, rather than be applied to perhaps three or four or five people who would be affected by the drain, who actually were paying for the total cost of the chain.

In that regard, we don’t anticipate the cost should be too high in any case, but we didn’t feel they should apply just to the people who are wanting to put the drain through. And in this case, if the council were to ask that it be part of the report, then council would be required to pay for the cost involved in that environmental report.

Likewise if it went on, then we have the Ministry of Natural Resources involved, and the same would apply in that case.

I think we have covered all the questions the members have raised; and I appreciate the points they raised in regard to many of the items in the bill that they support. I appreciate the fact that both opposition parties are supporting the bill.

We will have perhaps one or two minor amendments when we take the bill to committee. They are more for the purpose of clarification and definition. One is a proper description of roods. We will be bringing those amendments in.

The member for Lambton mentioned the association of rural municipalities and a couple of questions they were raising. We are going to meet with them tomorrow morning and go over the sections they have some concern about to see if we can clarify these. If there are some changes that might be brought about, then they would also be brought forth in committee. That’s the reason we won’t proceed into committee now, but will proceed with the bill on Thursday.

Mr. Gaunt: What about proclamation?

Mr. Eaton: I can’t give the member a definite date on the proclamation. Certainly, if everything moves through here smoothly, we would like to be able to set up the course for superintendents some time this winter. I would think it would be proclaimed late this year or maybe early next year.

Mr. Speaker, I think that concludes my remarks on the bill.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to be ordered to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, on Thursday.

Agreed.

TILE DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Stewart, moves second reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Tile Drainage Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant have an opening statement?

Mr. Eaton: I would just like to make a few quick comments, Mr. Speaker. This bill is a companion bill to the Drainage Act as it refers to the tribunal that we have set up under the Drainage Act. Appeals can also take place under the Tile Drainage Act where a person is turned down for a tile drainage loan. It also brings about other recommendations in the report of the select committee in that we will be requiring sketches to be submitted to our tile inspectors where grants or loans are made for farm drainage. We will also be extending this to northern municipalities, under the recommendation of the committee, so that they will be able to get the same loans that the organized counties have received. They will be able to get 75 per cent of the cost of drainage work at the four per cent interest rate.

The bill also provides where land is no longer used for agricultural purposes the loan will become due and payable and, if it is paid back then it will also require that the debentures be paid back by the municipality.

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

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this companion Act to Bill 130, it is an area the select committee spent considerable time on. There is no point in having a Drainage Act and all its requirements without having the Tile Drainage Act to supplement it. As you realize, Mr. Speaker, if we built major drains without having subsurface drainage to drain into them, we would be defeating the purpose of these drains. Each 20 or 30 acres we can put into a major drain alters the cost-benefit ratio of that major expenditure in relation to the financial aspects as well as to the improved productivity of the agricultural producers of our province. With this thought in mind, our party does support the basic principles in this bill.

There are several sections I would like to query, and know the hon. member for Kent has comments which he wishes to raise. The first section, allowing an appeal through the drainage tribunal where an applicant has asked to borrow money under section 3 and the council in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, has decided that these moneys are not to come forth in the amount that is requested, is a supportable clause in the bill, although it does not comply with the exact wishes of the select committee recommendations.

As I recall our discussions and recommendations, we concluded that it should become mandatory on all councils to lend the total amount provided for in the Act. Here, again, we ran into situations where councils or councillors passed judgement on the property owners in the area as to their efficiency as farmers and their capacity to repay these loans. We realize this is an area of local responsibility, but I think the committee felt it was rather unfair that the credit of an individual applicant be questioned by a council -- possibly at an open meeting -- and be subject to discussion among the other rate-payers in that immediate area. I think this particular section would allow an individual property owner who has applied for X hundreds of thousands of dollars, if he is not satisfied, to take the appeal away from the local council level to the tribunal where possibly a judgement at arms’ length may be more satisfactory. I think I can live with this particular section, although as I say it doesn’t comply in total with our recommendations.

The second section, requiring a sketch to be submitted to the inspector on field tiles, I think is commendable. I was personally of the opinion, since the Ministry of Agriculture and Food does offer to draw plans for an individual farmer, taking into account all the technical considerations, that possibly this should be the initial step. He shouldn’t qualify for a loan unless these plans are drawn accurately and, hopefully, are being retained by the local ag office. No doubt these sketch plans will be filed with the ag office and will be of assistance to any future property owner who may purchase that farm property and who wants to know where the particular drains are.

I think it is essential in the long-term picture, as we move toward proper water management, that the numbers, locations and volumes of these individual farm drains are kept track of and we know exactly the volume flowing into any individual drain and subsequently to the outlet.

This does not go quite as far as I would like to see. I would personally like to see these sketches drawn by the ministry -- rather than a sketch by the individual property owner -- for purposes of record-keeping and possibly accuracy.

Section 4, Mr. Speaker, I believe takes care of the land speculator who may buy agricultural property and take it out of active agricultural production, in that they would have to pay up the outstanding loans registered against the property. Personally, I think the committee felt that a land speculator or a developer shouldn’t benefit because of the improved condition of agricultural property because of under-drainage. Certainly the under-drainage would enhance the esthetics of the property and make it more readily salable to the public. As such, there is a responsibility on the land developer or speculator to repay these loans and clear off that indebtedness.

In section 6, I notice there has been no change from the old bill in the amount of the percentage of loan or the interest rate. I know we had considerable discussion concerning this matter and no doubt others will pass comment on that particular section.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few things about this Tile Drainage Act. As the member for Essex South has so well said, it is important that this Act come in at the same time because a lot of the benefits to be realized under the other Act are contingent on their being under-drainage and getting good drainage from the field into the larger drains which are municipal drains and other waterways.

I think it is important that there be appeals to the Ontario Drainage Tribunal because some of the municipalities were not willing to go up to the 75 per cent level of borrowing which was possible under the legislation. If the municipality did not pass the necessary bylaw the farmer in those areas could not get that kind of assistance. This will make it possible, as I understand it, for a farmer, if that’s the case, to appeal to get a larger loan.

It also protects the municipalities because if a councillor feels that a person is not the best credit risk, on the understanding of his background, the councillor would not okay it. Now the person can go end has another chance. If he is a bad credit risk, he can be turned down the second time. If he is not as bad as they think, lie’s got a chance here of getting consideration.

I think it is also good that there be a sketch so that as years pass and ownership of a farm changes, if there is beginning to be a breakdown in certain section, it will be possible for the new owner to locate the tiles and be able to do minor repairs perhaps rather than a full retiling job on that particular farm.

Of course, I am very delighted by the legislation which will make it possible in unorganized municipalities of northern Ontario --

Mr. Henderson: Cochrane North.

Mr. Ferrier: Cochrane North and Dryden -- that’s some place. I was stranded there the other day for six hours at the airport; that’s our norOntair system, which is supposed to be so good.

Mr. Eaton: The member shouldn’t have gone to that convention.

Mr. Ferrier: They didn’t even acknowledge confirmed reservations.

Be that as it may, Dryden is one of the areas which will benefit from this. There was a significant pocket of farmers, good farmers, living there in unorganized territory.

Mr. Henderson: What would the member be doing in Dryden?

Mr. Ferrier: I was trying to get a candidate in --

Mr. Henderson: Opposing that Liberal?

Mr. Ferrier: No, in Rainy River actually. Anyway, let’s not get sidetracked to that.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ll take the seat too.

Mr. Ferrier: This will mean that those farmers can get tile drain loans. Agriculture in the north needs encouraging. It is a viable operation in a number of areas like Dryden and in the Rainy River area which already has the option because those areas are organized. In areas like Cochrane North or parts of Thunder Bay, maybe, and Kenora, this now puts the farmers on the same basis as they are in other places.

I am encouraged that in my own area there are two plots of tiled drains which have been set up under the agricultural office and the committee there. Drainage is being promoted, I hope, much more significantly in northern Ontario than before.

I think the committee as a whole is to be commended for giving this encouragement because it will help agriculture in the north to a significant degree. Often we get more rain than some of the other parts of the province.

I don’t think I will make many more comments other than to say, as the member for Essex South said, we did have a good debate on the level of the loan and the interest rate. I see this has confirmed what was there before. Perhaps this was a good move. Maybe we were a little bit too generous in what we were trying to do but, of course, as far as agriculture is concerned I feel we in government should try to encourage this industry in every way we can, to increase the food-growing capacity of our farmers. So many other people are getting big rip-offs and grants and everything else at least we should try to see that farmers get a fair deal. This was one of the ways we tried to do it on committee -- to see that they got a little extra encouragement -- and maybe the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in its wisdom, I don’t know, didn’t accept our recommendation. I guess they can’t be as bright as the 11 members of the committee were.

Anyway, I know you want to call it 6 o’clock, Mr. Speaker, and I have made my comments. My colleague from Sandwich-Riverside will make more comments and I know the member for Kent is just chomping at the bit to get up and make some remarks, too.

Mr. Speaker: In other words, other members wish to speak to this bill.

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