Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Drea, on behalf of hon. Mr. Handleman, moves second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to make a few comments on this amendment to the Insurance Act.

Because we have so many followers of Hansard, I thought it might be wise to read the explanatory note just before the remarks on this discussion, and the explanatory note states as follows:

“The amendments permit the establishment of a fire mutuals guarantee fund establishing a trust fund to which insurers carrying on business on the premium note plan may subscribe and contribute, and thereafter those insurers cease to issue contracts on the premium note plan and the fund guarantees ability of the insurers to meet their obligations.”

I went back to the original Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure of the definition of premium note, and the original Act stated that a premium note means an instrument given as consideration for insurance whereby the maker undertakes to pay such sum or sums as may be legally demanded by the insurer, but the aggregate of which sums does not exceed an amount specified in the instrument.

On checking with some members of the staff of some of the companies in Ontario, I found that discussions have been taking place for approximately three years to have such change come about, as they felt that this system of premium note was somewhat antiquated and probably hadn’t been used to its full advantage for 30 years or so. I do not hesitate in supporting this legislation. But I did note that section 7, which, of course, contains the main content of the bill and is the section that sets up the fire mutuals guarantee fund also sets out the manner in which this fund may be used. I am certainly in agreement with this idea of the fund because I am sure, as it states here, it is to be used for the purpose of satisfying claims by policy holders and -- I hope that I understand it correctly -- that it will not be used for keeping a company in business if it has financial difficulties.

I understand that there are 52 companies still in existence in Ontario. I don’t know if there are any in Scarborough or not; maybe the parliamentary assistant could advise me to that effect. I understand that most of these companies are in agreement with this amendment.

However, in looking over section 7(2) I note that it says that the insurer may enter into an agreement. It doesn’t use the word “shall.” When we go on down to section 7(4), it states that the assets of the fund shall be maintained at no less than a book value of $1 million. I hope if this legislation passes we don’t find that only 15 of the 52 companies decide to enter into agreement under the guidance of the superintendent of insurance. At first glance it appears that “may” is the right word to use, but I wonder if it could in the future present some hardship in case all companies don’t want to enter into an agreement.

The only other information I would like to have from the parliamentary assistant pertains to section 7(3). It states very vaguely that the fund may be used as directed by a board of trustees established under the agreement. I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant who would make up the board of trustees. I hope that this board would include representatives of the mutual association and other active members in the mutual insurance companies.

We will support this amendment to the Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker. Again, I just wonder why this Act after three years of discussion was introduced one day and then the next day has to be passed.

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

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to take part because I must be quite honest with the parliamentary assistant, I don’t fully understand the technical language of the bill. I don’t often admit to that but I have to admit tonight. I read it, and not having had the opportunity to cross-reference it, frankly I don’t understand it fully.

I would ask you to depart, Mr. Speaker, from the normal procedure and permit the parliamentary assistant to make some kind of comment about the content of the bill and its intent. If you would do that, then it wouldn’t have to go to committee, I suspect. Maybe then if I have any questions, I might be permitted to ask them.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Scarborough Centre might comment on this.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): I am in agreement with that, Mr. Speaker. If there is no other member who wishes to talk, I’d proceed on that basis now.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I wanted to say a word about it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we might let the parliamentary assistant make a couple of comments and then we will go on with the debate.

Mr. Gaunt: The parliamentary assistant asked if there are other members who wish to talk on the bill.

Mr. Deans: Let’s hear about it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t trying to cut anybody off. As long as it is all right with everybody -- it is understood that I am not going to be the last voice, if they want to ask questions.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine. The parliamentary assistant will have another chance.

Mr. Drea: No, I was thinking about the member.

Mr. Deans: I want the parliamentary assistant to have another chance.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Act is really to bring into modern times and through the use of a modern type of contingency fund the farm mutual insurance companies of this province. In the beginning, the farm mutual insurance companies began as an instrument by which the farmer could obtain fire insurance in areas where the conventional or commercial insurance companies were either not prepared to enter into the market or categorically refused.

As a means of protecting themselves against sudden and very calamitous claims against any one company, which their assets might not be sufficient to meet, they were required to enter into the system which has been in effect until this Act, which is the premium note. In effect, and the member for Perth has described it, a policy holder signed an obligation with the farm mutual insurance company that if the assets of the company which insured him were not sufficient to pay claims, he could be called upon to contribute to that company on the basis of the amount on the premium note.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s a matter of record that not since 1931 has any one of the companies been required or forced to call in a premium note. The obvious question is, why do they want to change? I think it’s because rural Ontario is changing. A great number of people in rural Ontario are totally unaware that this system has been going on.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Changing for the next election.

Mr. Gaunt: Changing for the better.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Some of those members won’t be there after September, but don’t mind me.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Scarborough Centre will still have his farm.

Mr. Drea: Rural Ontario is changing, Mr. Speaker. There are a great number of people there now who are not conversant with this system of buying fire insurance.

The companies felt that in order to maintain their share of the market a contingency fund which would do what the premium notes would do would be a more equitable manner of protecting the policy holder if the assets of the company were not sufficient to pay all the claims required. At the same time, it lifts a very heavy cloud or a potentially heavy cloud from the person who is insured for fire, livestock or weather coverage with these companies because that premium note is a contingent liability. While it is all very well to say one hasn’t been called in since 1931, nonetheless it is a contingent liability. Mr. Speaker, the companies decided that a modern approach to this would be a contingency fund.

I think it’s fair to point out that in addition to the premium note protecting the various policy holders, there has also been a farm mutual reinsurance fund which the member companies have subscribed to, as an intermediary form of protection, particularly in the field of weather insurance where everything over the first $100 must be reinsured.

With this Act, the farm fire mutual insurance company will have the option. I want to dwell upon this for a moment because the member for Perth has expressed some concern. In fact, I think the essence of his remarks was that perhaps this contingency fund should be mandatory rather than optional. The difficulty is that once a company enters into and signs the trust agreement and becomes part of the fire mutuals guarantee fund, it is no longer in a position to accumulate its surplus to the point of $1 million, where it could exercise its option to become a cash mutual insurance company. That is why we have left it optional. if a company chooses to go on using the premium note as the method of protecting its shareholders against a loss which would be beyond its assets, it is perfectly free to do so. If the company decides it would rather go into the fund -- I say to you, Mr. Speaker, all but one have indicated that they intend to go into the fund and are prepared to sign the trust agreement -- once it enters into that trust agreement it can no longer exercise its option to become a cash mutual insurance company without the expressed consent of the superintendent of insurance.

There are a number of very valid reasons why. if we were to allow them to go on saying, “Yes, we will demand premium notes from our policy holders” and at the same time have the overall protection of the fund, their surplus would rapidly accumulate to the point of $1 million.

They could exercise their right to become a cash mutual company. And, of course, the great benefit in becoming a cash mutual insurance company is that their lines of coverage would be broadened out to everything in property and casualty, whereas I now, as most of the members know, the farm fire mutual insurance company is limited to fire, livestock, weather and automobiles -- only in terms of fire. So there is an attraction to becoming a cash mutual insurance company if you can accumulate the surplus. And that is why we’ve left it optional. Some of these companies have passed over and become very successful cash mutual companies, and we don’t want to deny them the right in the future to do that, if they choose now to stay under the premium note system.

By the same token, as you know many of these companies started with the minimum 10 people insuring themselves. We don’t want to close the door to new farm fire mutual insurance companies being started in the Province of Ontario. And it is felt that as long as there is the option that in the beginning they can go the premium note system and then apply to become part of this fund, that we’re not closing the door on new farm fire mutuals entering; nor are we closing the door on them, once they accumulate the mandatory $1 million of a surplus, to becoming a full-fledged mutual insurance company. That is why we I have left it optional.

Now, it is my understanding, with the exception of Canadian Millers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Co., which really hasn’t been part of these negotiations -- it has been planning to become a cash mutual for some time -- that the other companies all chose to go the contingency fund route. The reason for that is very simple. It’s very difficult to explain to a potential policy holder, who is not familiar with the history and the background of this type of insurance company, as to why he must assume a contingent liability above and beyond the premium that he pays. It is also very difficult to explain to him how his dividend, because it is a mutual insurance company, does come back to him -- but his dividend is not based upon that premium note. That is totally excluded. That is a contingent liability out here in right field.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one further thing. The member for Perth asked who would make up the board of trustees. That will be entirely from the companies. They will elect their own board -- the people who sign the trust indenture. The superintendent of insurance, as you can see from the legislation, will supervise audit and has the right to call for reports. Indeed, the question was raised about spending some of this $1 million to keep an unsuccessful company in business, or to prop it up -- I think that was the suggestion. In essence, the superintendent of insurance will exercise extremely tight control over the fund.

Mr. Speaker, for the member for Wentworth, I can say to him that sections 1 through 7 are essentially housekeeping. Under the present Insurance Act there are specific sections in there which deal with premium note companies. All we’re doing is adding to the premium note plan the fire mutuals guarantee fund. We’re introducing that as housekeeping. That is sections 1 to 7.

Section 7 forms the basis of the amendments really, because it establishes the fire mutuals guarantee fund. It sets out the purposes of the fund; it set it out at $1 million. I might say that the $1 million is going to be raised two-thirds by the assets of the companies that enter, and one-third by the reinsurance programme. It provides that if there is a pay out, the member companies can be assessed to bring it up again to the book value of $1 million. It controls the investment of those moneys.

Then there is subsection 5, which states that if the company itself would be placed in a precarious financial position because of the amount of the assessment, the total assessment will not be levied against the company.

We go on to subsection 8, which is a very significant section because it says that once a farm fire mutual company exercises its option, signs the trust agreement and enters into the contingency fund, it cannot continue to use the premium note without the express consent of the superintendent of insurance. I think I dwelt on that before. It would be the best of both worlds.

Then, of course, subsections 9, 10 and 11 pertain to the actual operations of the fund.

One of the housekeeping amendments that may be of interest to the member for Wentworth is section 3(2)(1a). It will be noticed that a company that enters into the fire mutuals guarantee fund is exempted from sections 129 through 138 of the present Insurance Act. The reason for that is there are now restrictions upon the distribution of surplus and other operations of companies that are using the premium note plan. Again, it would have to be with the superintendent’s express consent, and for a very unusual reason, that a company would be allowed to continue with the premium note plan while belonging to the fund, because they are exempted from a number of sections, particularly one section which deals with the payment of dividends and the distribution of surplus.

I would like to say one other thing. This does not in any way broaden the applicable coverage that the farm fire mutuals will be able to extend to policy holders. It will still be confined to farm, fire, livestock and weather; in no way does this extend the coverage to general casualty and property. There is some concern in some quarters that this is the thin edge for a number of new insurance companies. That is not the purpose of this Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have explained the bill in as much detail as I would hope would be of benefit to the members. If there are any further questions, or if I have skimmed over things a bit too quickly, why I would be prepared to answer them again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I want to thank the member for his explanation. It’s a lot better, because quite frankly I didn’t understand that. It’s a lot more technical than first meets the eye. The cross-references are important.

It seems to me, I must say, that in spite of this rather simple explanation, it’s the kind of bill we should have had in committee only because I don’t really understand the ramifications of the insurance business and I don’t pretend to -- and I doubt if many members of the House do.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Oh, I don’t know about that.

Mr. Deans: I know one member of it who does, but then he earns half his living from it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was $500 last year.

Mr. Deans: I’m sorry. It was the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) who I was talking about. But I’m not at all sure --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of intergovernmental Affairs): Plus five per cent.

Mr. Deans: I would be guessing. Therefore I’m going to have to trust the --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deans: Oh, no, that really kills it. Now I know there is something wrong with it. I wasn’t sure before but when the Treasurer says I should trust the government I know there is something wrong.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, the member.

Mr. Deans: No, it’s the government. Frankly I have no way of telling. Did this bill go outside of the House in any form at all? What discussion took place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Three years.

Mr. Ruston: Three years ago.

Mr. Deans: No, I understand that aspect of it. What I am asking is whether the bill in its present form was discussed by anyone outside the House with regard to the application as it has to be applied to the existing insurance operations?

Before the member gets up -- I’ll save him from bobbing up and down; I’ll tell him when I’m finished -- I want to know a little bit about how he arrived at the two-third asset, one-third reinsurance proportions for the raising of the $1 million.

Also, in subsection 8 of section 7, what becomes of the insured in the event that there is, as there always is, a time lag between the time the insurer is notified and the insured gets his policy? It says, “An insurer that becomes a party to an agreement referred to in subsection 1 [which I won’t read] shall, except with the approval of the superintendent, cease to undertake contracts ... ” What protection is there for the insured in that regard?

As I say I don’t often admit it but in this case I don’t know enough about it to be able to talk intelligently about the insurance business. But, as I said to my colleague, I have a certain sense of uneasiness about the system which is being proposed. Have there been a number of cases where the insurer has failed to meet his or her obligations to the insured under the system which prevailed prior to the introduction of this Act?

Mr. Edighoffer: I understand there was one.

Mr. Deans: I personally don’t know of any and my colleague, Mr. Edighoffer, from wherever it is he comes from --

Mr. J. F. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Perth.

Mr. Deans: Perth. I’m sorry; from Perth.

Mr. Stokes: Everybody knows that.

Mr. Deans: He indicates there has been one. I am kind of worried about the reasoning behind bringing in a fairly elaborate system to cover that when there was but one. What caused that to happen?

Mr. Drea: One company?

Mr. Deans: My colleague from Perth tells me there has been one case where the insurer has failed to meet his or her obligations to the insured.

Mr. Drea: Not since 1931.

Mr. Deans: Not since 1931? I see. Is this the result of inflation? Is it simply a matter that because of the rapidly rising costs of the reproduction of farm buildings and farm properties this kind of fund is necessary? Is it directly attributable to the rising costs of replacement? Is it because there has been some clear indication that certain of those who are involved in the business aren’t able to meet their obligations? Are they not sufficiently funded? Why do they want to enter into such a co-operative arrangement? Do they want to offset the chances of loss against a larger fund?

Let me put it this way. If an insurer is uncertain about his or her capacity to meet the obligations of those who are insured, they can offset this by entering into a pool arrangement with a number of insurers, as is done by Lloyd’s of London frequently. When Lloyd’s takes on a very large obligation it offsets it against a number of smaller policies outside.

Mr. Stokes: Reinsuring.

Mr. Deans: Reinsuring, in other words.

Mr. Drea: They do this now.

Mr. Deans: Yes, that is what I am saying. I don’t really understand why this is necessary. There has to be something more. I listened to you and I couldn’t understand why we needed it. What is it about the system now? What is it about the insurers’ capacity? What is it about the insured that makes such a scheme necessary in the Province of Ontario? Or is it simply an effort to try to keep a number of small insurers in business -- and this may be legitimate -- in order to offset their losses against a pool that is established by a number of small people sunning insurance operations primarily for one purpose?

Does the parliamentary assistant understand what I am saying? You know, I don’t understand it frankly. I know enough about insurance to know that there is something not quite clear, but I don’t know enough to tell you what it is. Okay?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word about this bill. We certainly agree with the bill, as has been indicated by my colleague, the member for Perth. The farm mutuals have been asking for this legislation for some three years and, as I understand it, they are quite pleased that it has been brought forward at this time.

I understand that as far as the premium notes are concerned, the entire system was archaic. There have been a number of firms -- one I am quite familiar with -- go out of business, but they haven’t taken up the option to call in the premium notes. They said that they don’t feel that this was the way to do it and they have just voluntarily gone into bankruptcy, or in some cases just out of business, period. So that the insurance companies generally, the farm mutuals, have felt that even though this stipulation was there, it would never be used and hasn’t been used since 1931. There was no point to really maintaining the system, because it wasn’t to their advantage and it certainly wasn’t to the advantage of the policy holders.

This particular system is much more modem and it brings the farm mutuals into the 20th century, I think it’s fair to say. They have all agreed to join in the fund with the exception of one. I understand that one, as the parliamentary assistant has said, is not going to do so because they have built up their own fund. They have been accumulating their own fund throughout the years, and so they feel no need to involve themselves in this fund at this particular time.

I was wondering about the same problem as raised by the member for Perth, but I can appreciate it now. The government is leaving the options open. They can go either route if they so desire, and perhaps a good argument can be made for that particular option.

In view of the fact that I do have a number of farm mutuals in my riding, I wanted to indicate that I support the legislation. We welcome its provisions and we think it will be of great assistance to the farm mutuals.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in the debate? The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about this bill. I think it’s a step in the right direction. As my colleague said, he has a number of farm mutual fire insurance in his riding, and I must say I have a number, too. I have been insured under the mutual fire insurance company ever since I was big enough to pay premiums.

These premium notes to me seem to be outdated, but I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question in regard to the mutual fire insurance and the fund of $1 million. Does that mean that each mutual fire insurance company would have to have $1 million backing?

Mr. Drea: Not necessarily.

Mr. Spence: Not necessarily. One in the whole group?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Spence: That’s right -- mutual. So I think this is a step in the right direction. Each year they have a mutual fire insurance convention here in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Gaunt: The Treasurer often goes.

Mr. Ruston: Darcy spoke there a year ago.

Mr. Spence: I always attend. I was disappointed that the Treasurer wasn’t there on one or two nights, but he has attended on many occasions, and I was glad to see him in with us farmers.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have been there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer is a teetotaler, that’s why.

Mr. Spence: He comes from the city and I just wondered whether he had come in to rub shoulders with us poor people from the rural areas.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Spence: But he did this on a number of occasions.

I think doing away with those premium notes is a step in the right direction, because everybody hesitates when they have to sign a premium note. I think maybe today it is of greater concern than it has been in the past.

These mutual fire insurance companies have done a tremendous job. They give us insurance at a very reasonable rate, and I must say they do a tremendous job in our part of the province and, I would expect, in every part of the province.

With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would say I think the parliamentary assistant is doing the right thing in introducing this bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member doesn’t want the socialists to take over the companies.

Mr. Spence: No socialists.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion? The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be repetitious, but I just want to say that I think it’s legislation that has long been needed. I know that five mutuals have been requesting it for going on three years, and it’s quite a load to take off the shoulders of people who have to take out their insurance and at the same time have to sign a premium note.

I am sure the member for Wentworth would realize what a premium note is if he goes to back a note for his friend at the bank or something. In effect, this is about the same thing. We are now taking that away, so that they don’t have to do that anymore. With adequate funding, the people who are insured will be protected, and this is insurance at the grass roots. This is even better than government insurance because it is operated --

Mr. Deans: Why not a normal insurance programme? That’s what I want to ask.

Mr. Ruston: -- by the people themselves. Their directors are elected by the members who use the insurance facilities, and so I think it’s a good thing that we bring in legislation that brings them up into today’s world.

We would look forward, of course, if there is anything needed in the future with regard to amendments to it; sometimes these bills go through and maybe we find after six months or a year that alterations are needed. I am sure they won’t take three years to make any amendments if they are necessary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Drea: I can assure my friend from Essex-Kent my legislation never needs amendments.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, now, that’s a rash statement.

Mr. Drea: Never, never.

Mr. Ruston: He will - have to eat those words.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: That has convinced me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think that a number of speakers who have supported this do understand the principle, and therefore I tried to keep track of the number of questions that the member for Wentworth was posting. I counted up to 13, and the answer to all of the questions that he posed was “No,” so we will start from the beginning.

Mr. Deans: Thank you.

Mr. Drea: I obviously didn’t explain it correctly, because most of those questions were based upon the premise that if these companies are successful, why bring this in?

First of all, none of these companies is in a precarious financial position. I can say categorically that they are all examined by the superintendent of insurance and they are right up to date.

Second, it is not inflation nor the potential high cost of claims that is bringing them into this, because some years ago this government brought in the farm fire mutual reinsurance fund plan, and that was very anticipatory because it got them into reinsurance long before the present type of thing was needed.

One of the other things is they are also in an insurance situation where they have very little real control over some of the catastrophes that may happen because there are no fire hydrants. If a barn catches fire, it is usually a total loss.

Mr. Deans: Even where there are fire hydrants that is normal.

Mr. Drea: Yes, all right; but if one gets into the field of weather, the insurance against weather in some of the rural areas is a very risky undertaking. Anything over $100 worth of coverage must be put through the reinsurance fund and it goes on as the member has suggested, eventually through other companies. So it is not for that reason.

The fundamental reason is these companies -- and I think the member for either Essex-Kent or Huron-Bruce mentioned these are grassroots companies -- these companies do not employ agents; you go to them.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Drea: They are relatively small companies; I don’t want to say they are small because some of them handle a great volume of insurance. These companies are finding -- with the movement into rural Ontario of people who are not familiar with the origins of the farm fire mutual insurance companies, which are basically a farmers’ co-operative to provide a service the commercial companies refused to furnish, and in most cases still refuse to furnish -- these companies find it very difficult to explain to new Canadians or to people who come from the city or to people who have come from other provinces, this premium note. They feel very obligated to tell them that this premium note is a contingent liability that may have to be called in.

Now what they’re doing is really modernizing. The premium note served that section of the insurance industry honourably and well for almost half a century, in fact longer than that. The point is that they are now in a position through their assets -- and they have built these assets by themselves -- that they can pool into a single fund which, based with the reinsurance plan, will provide adequate protection against a sudden catastrophe that would wipe out the assets of a single company and leave its policy holders unable to have their claims paid. This is the only reason for it.

Mr. Deans: I agree.

Mr. Drea: Now then, the member asked has any of this bill been to people on the outside before it was here.

Mr. Deans: I understand it has.

Mr. Drea: Well I don’t want to say we’re in the habit of handing out bills to people. What was discussed with them, very obviously, was the trust agreement. They had to agree to enter into the proposal, they had to know what they’re doing; and as a matter of fact some final crossing of the t’s is still going on.

Again, the question was asked why we go into reinsurance for one-third and their assets for two-thirds. It was that we didn’t want to strip them of their immediate cash flow in the first instance to get this fund started; it’s a very logical -- and that’s an approximation, it may not even require that much on the reinsurance fund.

One other matter: I don’t want to leave members with the impression that in subsection 8 of section 7, where we say if they enter into this fund they will cease to do premium note plan business they will cease immediately. There are premium notes that will extend beyond the introduction of this Act. In some cases, people have taken premium notes for two or three years and they still have some months to run.

What we’re saying is no new premium notes. The ones that are there, and I say this in all fairness, the ones that are there for the months that remain until the time limit goes off on them are still contingent liabilities; and the person who entered into the contract based upon that premium note still has that cloud over his head, although I would doubt there would be anything of such magnitude that would affect the fund to such a degree that a premium note might be called in. So there will be no new ones issued.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that answers all of the queries and all of the questions. Perhaps the member for Wentworth has touched upon something, and I think some other speakers did too, that this is a method of permitting some relatively small Canadian, Ontario companies that have a remarkable success rate in the insurance field to compete in the modern Ontario, and leaving open to them the option that, if they can satisfy the superintendent of insurance and have valid reasons for doing so, they may at a future time still apply for the right to become a cash mutual and to extend and broaden their coverage. I think we have achieved really what the industry wanted.

One of the reasons it took three years, I may say, is that there was a great deal of very intricate work in the trust agreements and the protection that would be provided. Again, there had to be some deep consideration given as to whether we would make it mandatory. I say in all fairness to the member for Perth that the question of mandatory versus optional took up a great deal of time and of thinking. Again, the composition of the board of trustees took up a considerable amount of time.

In terms of providing protection and of allowing that particular segment of the industry to modernize and of making it as attractive as possible in a competitive way to the individual policy holder in rural and some of the smaller communities in Ontario, I think that we have met the requests of that industry. I would hope that we would get the full support of the House for this bill.

Mr. Deans: The parliamentary assistant has it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Bill 15, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Bill 16, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry protection Act.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that in the absence of the minister, my parliamentary assistant for the evening, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), will carry the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I knew the member for Lambton was an expert in drainage, but I didn’t know that he was an expert in dog protection or whatever pertains under this bill.

Mr. Stokes: This one has to do with rabbits, though.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): He is going to make the fur fly in Huron on July 28.

An hon. member: He had better read the bill first.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he hop along?

An hon. member: Has he read the bill yet?

Mr. Edighoffer: It’s too much for him.

Mr. Gaunt: In any case, this is a fairly innocuous amendment. I understand why it is in here. I think there have been some losses experienced with respect to fur-bearing animals and also to rabbits. Rabbit farming these days is becoming a popular pastime.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Everybody I know is doing it.

Mr. Gaunt: It can even be something more than a hobby.

Mr. Stokes: For fun and profit.

Mr. Gaunt: I fully appreciate the need for the inclusion of rabbits and fur-bearing animals under this Act.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Gaunt: The fur-bearing animals, I understand, would include the fox, marten, mink, raccoon and the fisher. I don’t know how many fisher farms there are in the province but I do know that there are some fox and mink farms throughout the province.

Generally, we would certainly support this particular amendment to the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Amendment Act. There is just one thing. I understand that the maximum payable out under the Act both for fur-bearing animals and for rabbits is going to be left to the regulations. I am wondering, just so the member for Lambton has some question to which he can respond, what amount does he have in mind? How much is the ministry going to pay per rabbit; how much is it going to pay per fox?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It depends what rabbits he has in mind.

Mr. Gaunt: What about the mink? Does he have any figure in mind?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous bill, I have had an opportunity to review this bill rather extensively.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member just likes bills with a little sex in them, that’s all.

Mr. Deans: I have read at length the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act, being chapter 132 --

Mr. Stokes: If members don’t believe it, just ask him.

Mr. Deans: -- in the Statutes of Ontario, 1970. I have cross-referenced it, I might say, with the 1974 Revised Statutes. I have even read the Fur Farms Act, 1971, to determine that there is no deviation from the intent of those Acts. We agree that it is not a bad Act and we will pass it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is no deviation in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These rabbits are all straight.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part? The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, this bill is of considerable import because there is another bill on the order paper, presented by myself, to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act. It is an amendment called for even despite the provisions in section 8 of the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act granting permission to an animal control officer to enter on to and into a private property in order to enforce the regulations.

I am not exactly sure what animals are covered under this section. I think the minister would have to describe fur-bearing animal first in order for us to make proper comment.

Mr. Gaunt: It is a fisher, fox, marten, mink, raccoon or other animal that the Lieutenant Governor in Council declares to be a fur-bearing animal.

Mr. Deans: Whether it is or not.

Mr. Breithaupt: They are going to have Noah as the chairman of the tribunal.

Mr. Germa: Unfortunately, the bill I have in my hand doesn’t describe what a fur-bearing animal is. I will have to just image what it is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is an animal which bears fur.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. Germa: A bear is presumably a fur-bearing animal, though I don’t think one applies this Act to bears. The description of a fur-bearing animal has to be more closely defined. I don’t know where the member for Huron-Bruce got the information of the description.

Mr. Gaunt: It is in the Fur Farms Act, 1971.

Mr. Germa: Oh, I am sorry, I neglected my research, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This has all the earmarks of an election issue.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s go to the people on this.

Mr. Cassidy: Joe Fabbro will never make it because of this issue.

Mr. Germa: What I am concerned about is that when the minister was amending the Act, he didn’t provide for a means whereby the Act, the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act, could be enforced, in that an animal control officer cannot enter private property. When these animals are loose and are pursued by an animal control officer, they inevitably run to their domicile or where they normally stay. The animal control officer is helpless; he cannot enter private property in order to apprehend the animal which might be running at large.

It’s all right to pass regulations to include various animals within the legislation but if we do not provide a means whereby the control officer can control and do his job, we are not going anywhere. We could add names to this list all night and if we don’t have a method of enforcing it, we are not going anywhere. I wish the parliamentary assistant would respond to that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lambton.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In responding on this particular bill, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce --

Mr. Deans: We will watch the fur fly now.

Mr. Henderson: -- and the hon. member for Wentworth are to be congratulated on the research they put into it. To the hon. member for Sudbury and his inquiries about enforcing this particular bill, this is enforced by the local municipalities.

With respect to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, it’s any commercial operation, and to the actual value of them at that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: I understand they are grooming the member for Lambton.

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 142, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Clerk of the House: The 15th order; House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When we rose last, the member for Wentworth had the floor.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will recall, no doubt, that on Friday morning when we were discussing the Treasury estimates, I discussed some views I had about the whole matter of regional development and some concerns I felt about the fact that the province may well have missed the opportunity to use two of the major tools available to it in terms of trying to provide for some form of economic stimulation, some form of economic opportunity, for people in the eastern part of the Province of Ontario, and in particular in the northern part of the Province of Ontario. I don’t want to dwell on that at any great length tonight. I don’t want to dwell on anything at any great length tonight, but I do want to turn for a moment or two to regional government.

When I was first elected to the Legislature in 1967 there was a great deal of talk going on about regional government and regionalization of local government I think probably it was one of the main topics in certain parts of the province among a number of municipal leaders. I can remember the fanfare which attended upon the appointment of a regional government study group to look into the possibility of regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. I don’t pretend for a moment that the comments I will make here this evening will naturally be attributable to every single regional government area in the Province of Ontario, because it’s entirely possible that the circumstances and the events that have occurred since 1970 or later have been different for certain areas.

What I want to say is directly related to regional government as it has affected the Hamilton-Wentworth area. I want to suggest to the ministry that if there are any comments at all which are applicable to other areas in the province, then I ask them seriously to apply them. If they find none, then I would ask them to reconsider, because it’s going to be very difficult for me to believe that much of what I’m going to say doesn’t apply to more than one regional government area.

A great fanfare attended the setting up of regional government study groups. Those groups studied the areas that were given to them and, in general terms, arrived at what might have been considered by the majority of people to be acceptable boundaries for regional administrative purposes.

I think that the primary purpose of setting up regional government was twofold. It was, in the first instance, to ensure that the provision of services for areas not yet serviced would be less costly over the long haul and would be more likely to be accomplished by the region on behalf of its taxpayers.

I think the second half of it was that there would be some direct benefit to those who currently live within the regions. I don’t think we can afford to ask taxpayers in this day and age, given the high cost of simply making ends meet, to bear the burden of future benefits that might flow to their children or their children’s children. That doesn’t mean we ought not to pay attention to those problems. It simply means we can’t afford to bear all of that cost in this one generation of taxpayers.

While there may be very useful and worthwhile things that will slow in the long haul from regionalization, the taxpayers of today cannot be expected to bear the full burden, either by way of direct taxation on property or by way of grant, which is a method of raising taxes from a variety of other sources. You cannot expect the taxpayer of today will bear the full burden. I think this is really what’s been happening, and it worries me.

I have said many times that in the Hamilton-Wentworth region -- and if I may, I would like to use that as an example for the next few minutes -- there were two distinctly different entities. There was the city of Hamilton, which benefited fairly substantially from industrial development and assessment, and had a fairly high rate of benefit from commercial investment and assessment. The people of the city enjoyed a certain standard which provided for them fire and police protection, lighting, streets, sidewalks, garbage pickup and disposal, and a variety of other different services from the municipality. The old county of Wentworth had few of those amenities.

The average tax paid by the average citizen on the average assessment in the city of Hamilton varied very little from the average tax paid on the average assessment on the average home in the county of Wentworth. The difference, of course, lay in the degree of service. In the city there was a fairly high level of service. It was very costly, but it was fairly high. The cost was offset to a great extent by the assessment base, by industrial, commercial and residential put together.

In the county the services provided were fairly low. There were no sidewalks. In many areas there were few paved streets. In most areas there were no sewer or water services. There was adequate though at times hardly visible police protection for most of the rural area. There was little paid fire protection, though there was in fact volunteer fire protection. But the people in the rural community were satisfied with the services they were getting for the dollars they were paying. They didn’t ask for very much -- a clean ditch; a ball park scraped out; an ice rink flooded; a road to be oiled or tarred or have gravel or dust put down in the summertime to try to maintain some kind of a base. In general terms, the services provided in the rural communities were considerably less, on balance, than the services provided in the more urban communities. But the taxes, generally speaking, were about the same.

Regional government came along. I say to the minister that it was too much too quickly. I don’t know whether it will ever work. I suppose if the government determines that it shall work and if over the course of time many of the costs could be hidden in the general revenues or in the grants that are made available, then if the government is bound and determined that it’s going to succeed, it will succeed.

But if one were to weigh the cost today of the provision of the services that are currently available, over and against the cost of the services that were available immediately prior to regionalization, which is a year and a half ago in Hamilton-Wentworth, I say to the minister that he would find the costs of maintaining, administering and providing the services in the rural communities in the Hamilton-Wentworth region have risen unaccountably, at least from my point of view, since the time that the regionalization too place.

I happen to be one of those people who think that, on balance, there may have been an inquiry in the years gone by. But I think what has been tried has created a greater inequity than what was previously there. I think that in trying both to do the assessment on a market value base and to regionalize at the same time -- given that there were certain municipalities where the assessment base was market value and others where the assessment base was calculated on a formula other than market value; given that certain of the municipalities which were amalgamated in the regionalization had a tax base considerably different from their partners which had to become a part of the total municipality; given that the level of service in one municipality was considerably different from the level of service in its neighbour, east or west; given that the municipalities were different in their outlook, and given that they reflected a sense of what the people who lived there believed was necessary for their well-being -- the whole process is in some jeopardy at the moment.

I don’t have to make excuses for what has gone on in the area that I represent. I haven’t been happy all of the time with all of the decisions of the regional councils. I think the minister understands that. But the one thing that has bothered me more than any other single thing has been that, in the main, people who previously had a very minimal level of service, who paid a reasonably high level of tax and who were provided with a fairly intimate level of representation, now have a fairly minimal level of service, a fairly high level of tax and very little intimate representation.

The decisions that are being made are being made in such a way, and the balance between the various municipalities is so overwhelming, that for many people the opportunities for their legitimate concerns to be heard at the regional level are practically non-existent.

The minister can theorize. He can talk in theory about breakdown on rep by pop, he can talk about the way in which the boundaries were set up in order to ensure that a certain number of people would have a certain amount of representation, and he can tell me that the balance is there in theory. I can’t quarrel, because in theory it’s true. But theory doesn’t do a bloody thing for the man who lives in the house who feels that he is under-represented or who feels that the level of service afforded to him has deteriorated since the implementation of regional government.

Let me tell the minister that in speaking to the people in the town of Stoney Creek, for example, I discovered an area known as Walker Heights. Why is it called Walker Heights? Let me tell the House; because it’s a little higher than the rest and it was developed by a guy named Walker. It’s a residential area and it has been there for a number of years, far longer than I. It has always had some difficulty with the provision of water for normal household use, but it has always had water -- until regional government.

Then came the problem, and the problem stems from this: Previously the people who lived there knew their representatives intimately. When they picked up the phone on a Saturday morning and said, “Say, Jack, I don’t have any water today. What’s the problem?” Jack, sitting on the council, could call the engineer, who in turn could speak to the waterworks superintendent, who in turn could check out the problem and provide some relief.

Unfortunately, the entire town now has only two representatives. In order to get some satisfaction, those people who previously were able to get in touch quite intimately with their representatives, of whom there were a number, now have to find one of the two regional councillors on that Saturday morning; and that regional councillor in turn has to find the engineer; and that engineer in turn has to recognize that that’s important, even though it may only be 50 or 60 houses, and somehow or other has to relay that message to a man who is now the superintendent of water facilities, or whatever he is called, and who doesn’t give a damn about Walker Heights, and doesn’t provide the water anyway; and he says: “Let them wait.” That’s where the breakdowns come; the breakdown now is that these people no longer have access to the people who make the decisions.

How do we correct that? I don’t know, because as I looked at what occurred in that self-same town of Stoney Creek over the last two weeks, which had been brewing for six solid months, I’ve got to question it very seriously. We apparently have a situation in that municipality where some previous administrator, the one who is no longer there, is being blamed. He made some drastic errors in his calculation with regard to taxes.

I haven’t spoken to him personally, but I suspect he didn’t calculate properly because the amalgamation of the two municipalities, involving Saltfleet and Stoney Creek, made it difficult for him to fully understand in a short period of time the implications of the financial arrangements of the two, and he ended up making serious miscalculations about the revenue, the expenditures, the obligations and the grants. So they ended up with less revenue, higher expenditures, more obligation and fewer grants. In some instances he didn’t apply for grants that ought to have been available. The only explanation that I can find, given that this person had provided an adequate level of service for some 10 or 15 years, was that the transition was done in such a way that he wasn’t able to keep pace with it.

Now who suffers? Certainly not that individual -- I don’t know even where he is anymore -- not that individual. The people who suffer are the people in the community, the people who now have to pick up the additional tax costs.

I want to say that on balance, given that the ministry has now decided that transit is not going to become a regional responsibility -- and they made that decision on the basis of the argument made to them by the regional municipalities; given that the majority of people in the community don’t benefit one whit from the change; given that I can find no visible evidence of any higher level of service now or contemplated in the foreseeable future; given that I can find ample evidence of problems which have arisen as the result of regionalization; given that the taxes in the whole area have now risen substantially over 1973; given that the government is obligated to something called a five-year depletable -- I don’t know what the correct term is, but I suppose a five-year grant structure at the end of which there will be no more money, presumably; given that the residents of the area haven’t yet had it explained to them what the total costs of regionalization will be at the end of the five-year grant structure --

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Transitional.

Mr. Deans: -- transitional, thank you very much; he says transitional -- given that my constituents haven’t had it explained to them, either by this government or by any other government, what will happen by way of an increase in taxes at the end of the transitional grant period, which is now only 33 years away; given that the costs of regionalization, both in terms of the building of new palaces and the payment of new fee structures to the local municipal representatives, have cost the taxpayers considerable sums of money -- as yet not able to be determined fully -- I have asked, and I have asked seriously, for some kind of cost benefit analysis to be made.

Now the one thing we can’t afford, and I say this to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) with whatever is in me, we cannot afford to demand that a system prevail if the system is too costly for the people who have to pay the bills. We can’t do that.

We can’t say to some today that they are going to have to carry the burden of cost -- whether they be old age pensioners, whether they be people on fixed incomes, whether they be low wage earners or whether they be the average citizen -- we can’t say to them that they have to carry the burden of costs for something the government wants to see in force without being able to prove substantially to them that there will at some point be a benefit to them; there has to be a benefit.

Municipal taxes were intended to be taxes imposed for the purpose of the provision of services. It is not a general tax levy, nor was it ever intended to be a general tax levy. It was never intended to be related to income; and many of us in this Legislature have argued that it ought to have been.

Many of the services currently provided should, in fact, be provided out of general revenue rather than out of municipal revenue; but if we are going to continue indefinitely with the municipal tax structure as it currently is, if we are going to experiment with new systems, with new levies, with new taxation methods at the municipal level, at the expense of the current taxpayer who is already hard pressed, then we are not living up to our obligations.

The transition, if it were necessary, and that’s to be proved, ought to have been undertaken over a longer period of time. I suggest to you that as I look at what is happening within the region I represent -- much of which I represent along with other colleagues in the House -- I have come to the conclusion there is absolutely no evidence to date to show there are benefits which flow from regionalization. In addition, there is sufficient evidence on the record now to show that the additional costs outstrip whatever additional benefits currently flow.

There are, of course, the statements of the government that there will be benefits in the future. But I am going to tell you something about the future. The future is somewhat uncertain. For a great many people working in the average job, in the average plant, to tell them that someday in the future they or their offspring will benefit from a change in the structure at the municipal level just doesn’t wash.

Without condemning it -- and I make that clear -- I ask you again, as I have asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Provincial Treasurer in weeks gone by, will you please set up a study group who will sit down and analyze carefully the expenditures, the revenues, the programmes, the grants, the projected programmes and whatever benefits are intended to flow from regional government to the people who live in the region. Having so done, will you then make a statement -- a clear understandable, concise statement -- about whatever benefits there are that flow to the average taxpayer on the municipal tax roll; about the benefits he can expect over and against the costs which he has to pay.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask. I think, in fact, it’s a part of responsible government. I think that when you introduce programmes, regardless of whether or not you are wholeheartedly behind them and believe them I to be absolutely necessary, you have an obligation as the government of the province to ensure that there are benefits which flow, commensurate with the costs. I don’t think that’s been done; in fact, I know it hasn’t been done.

I don’t want you to wait for 10 years. I want an ongoing review to ensure that those taxpayers who at this particular point in time are having considerable difficulty making ends meet are given some assurance that the services they can expect in the future will be within their capacity to pay.

I think, on balance, that the government made a mistake in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. I suspect that others among my colleagues think it made a mistake in other areas. Some may believe that what they have seen is worthwhile; some may believe that what has happened in their particular areas is much better than what was there previously. So be it; that makes the government decision in that area corrected.

I want to tell you that until such time as I can see some very clear statistical information showing me that the average taxpayer is receiving as much for his tax dollar today, given the cost of inflation and given the rises related to inflation, as he was receiving prior to the implementation of regional government, I’ve got to say to you that I don’t understand what’s happening.

I think I’m speaking for most of the people in my constituency and for most of the people in the entire region. They all ask the same question: “How can it be that I get nothing more -- I get less, in fact -- by way of service and I’m expected to pay more, although I know the government is covering some of the cost by way of grant? What is the real cost to me as a taxpayer?”

I think that’s what’s called levelling with the public and that’s what’s called responsible government when the government says to the people, quite frankly, “These are the costs attendant on the services that you’re getting. These are the grants that we pay to offset the costs. This is the period of time in which the grant will be available. These are the costs you will have to bear when the grant is no longer paid.”

Having so done, you then say to them, “Now you know the truth. Make a judgement.” Ultimately I the judgement on these things belongs to the people who pay the bills. It doesn’t belong here. We may feel a little farsighted about things from time to time or have a little narrower view at other times, but the truth of the matter is that ultimately the people of the province pay the cost, and they deserve the truth.

I ask the Treasurer, on behalf of the municipal affairs portion of his ministry, to undertake in three areas, one of which I would ask would be the Hamilton-Wentworth region and any two others that he cares to choose -- perhaps Niagara, because it has been in effect longer, and perhaps a newer region if there is such a thing -- a cost-benefit analysis by way of a task force to determine whether what is now being provided, over and against what is now being paid, is commensurate with what was being provided prior to the implementation of regional government, over and against what it cost at that time, allowing a factor for inflation, and then publish the results.

In addition, he might want to project what people could reasonably expect to receive within their lifetime or what they might expect to see by way of increased benefits during the course of their living in that community. On balance, they would then be able to make a reasonable judgement about regionalization.

I say to the Treasurer that there isn’t a person outside of the ministry who honestly understands what’s happening in the province with regard to costs and regionalization. If the minister understands it, then he has kept it to himself, because he hasn’t shared it with anyone that I know of. I would ask him to make that kind of clean statement to the public about the way in which it’s being done so that at some point they, who have to pay the bills, also will have the opportunity to make the judgements. I think that’s where it’s all at. If they can’t, then who can?

I’m absolutely convinced that regionalization could provide certain benefits in the long haul. The unfortunate part about it is that the costs are far too onerous in the short run and, therefore, what benefit might flow over the long period is offset by the immediate cost, which the majority can’t afford. I would ask the minister if he wouldn’t consider undertaking such a study and making the content of it public -- without vetting, without any editing, make the content of whatever study is conducted public so that the public can review for themselves and can become knowledgeable and can then make a decision. Then if, in fact, what I suspect is true, they may want to rationalize their regions, they may want to alter to some extent the tier at which certain decisions are being made in order to ensure that the costs are within their capacities to pay.

When the town of Stoney Creek’s taxes went up 26 per cent or more this year, there were a great number of people -- who are living in the town because it was viewed by many to be a place to go to retire in -- whose income capacity is not sufficient to meet that additional cost. I think we legislators, particularly you as the government, have an obligation to look into it much more deeply than has been done in the past and to make some kind of recommendations. I am not happy with what has happened; not nearly happy.

I don’t see how the government could possibly hope to have operated in the way it has over the last number of years without a person in charge of municipal affairs. The last few weeks have changed that. The fact of the matter is that during that interim period there were horrendous problems that couldn’t possibly be coped with by one individual in charge of Treasury and Intergovernmental Affairs at the same time, including municipal affairs.

I think that what we said at the time the ministry was set up has proved to be true. I can well remember it. The ministry was set up to satisfy the appetite of the Treasurer, who is capable, no doubt, of absorbing and of taking on a lot of work. But the fact is that even this was too big for him. It was too big for the member for London South (Mr. White). Municipalities sat begging, waiting, hoping, but very little attention was being paid because the national economy, the provincial economy took up much -- not much too much, but obviously a proportion -- of the amount of the time, because of the great deal of difficulties in those areas. Municipalities weren’t able to get the kinds of answers that they had to have to the problems that were confronting them. It was all done in an offhand, “let’s get it over with” basis.

I am not suggesting for a moment that neither of the ministers tried hard -- I think they both did -- but I am going to tell this House that the move to create a portfolio dealing with municipal affairs itself should have taken place some time ago. Maybe what happened in Stoney Creek -- and what I suspect may well be happening in other communities, unbeknownst to them -- could have been avoided if the government had paid a little bit of attention to the budgeting, to the budget-making operation, to the grant structure operation, as it applied directly to small municipalities.

I want to ask one question in closing. I ask the minister in charge of municipal affairs if, in fact, the budgets of small municipalities were reviewed by the grants branch or the subsidies branch of the ministry; whether, in applying for subsidy for the variety of programmes, both capital and ongoing, the grants branch did review the budget to determine the capability of the local municipality? If it did, can the minister explain to me how it could be that that municipality could have failed to exercise its obligations to its taxpayers in the past fiscal year to the extent that it now has to levy an additional 26 per cent in order to make up what it didn’t claim for and what it did wrong?

There is no point in having the operation of reviewing municipal budgets if the review is cursory, if the review is not meaningful, if the review doesn’t take into account either the capacity of the municipality to raise the taxes or, on the other hand, the right of the municipality to expend the finances.

I am persuaded that a review, selected if one wishes in regional government areas, is an absolute necessity. It needn’t be aimed at disbanding -- though that may be the ultimate result in some instances -- but it certainly has to be aimed at determining whether the benefits are related directly to the costs. If the government is not prepared to do that, then ye are wasting our time here -- because that is our primary function.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I understand we were originally going to complete this item with the remarks of the member for Wentworth. However, it is necessary for us to continue in session so that the social development committee, if it completes Bill 100, will be able to report back to us in order that that bill may be printed as amended in committee and be available for us tomorrow.

Accordingly, perhaps this might be a convenient time for the Treasurer to respond generally, if he wishes to, to the two lead-off comments from the opposition parties -- and then we could go into the particular votes as time may be available to us.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I would reply at any length to the comments of the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) or the member for Wentworth. It seems to me that they will be more appropriately dealt with under the various votes and items, and particularly in connection with the problems of Stoney Creek.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Beckett) is much more familiar with it than I am. No doubt when we get to that vote, which is item 6, he may well be here and will want to try to answer some of the questions that have been raised by the member for Wentworth.

In reviewing my notes as to the various points raised, the member for York Centre spoke generally on regional development, regional offices, and the rationalization of same, which generally are the responsibility of the Chairman of the Management Board. However, the problems in connection with regional development, vis-à-vis Nanticoke and, as I say, the problems in connection with Stoney Creek, I think all can be dealt with greater efficacy as we approach the various votes and items under the votes.

The member for York South, however, did --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Centre.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: York Centre, yes; what a slip. The member for York Centre did ask for ways of going about the first vote itself -- ministry administration. Obviously, we regret what the expenditure is -- an increase as large as it is shown. Whether it will be spent remains to be seen. Of the increase of $1 million, 60 per cent is accounted by salary awards, merit increases to staff and the inflation factor generally on goods and services. There are several other smaller items, which mainly took place in 1974 and 1975, and were reflected in the 1975-1976 estimates. The largest single factor, as it is in a great number of estimates, is the inflation factor.

On vote 1001:

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect to this vote, the only general comment that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I understand the equal opportunity for women programme is under this particular vote. The programme is known as affirmative action.

I am wondering if the Treasurer could advise us particularly the steps that have been taken within the ministry to equalize the pay and job opportunities as well as equalizing the promotion possibilities. The one particular problem that I would consider at this point is the matter of labelling, which is still a way of getting around the particular matter of a woman receiving less pay than a man. We were aware of that, I believe, last year as various jobs were discussed on the same basis that, for example, a woman might be classified as a cook whereas a man might be classified as a chef. The additional differences in pay, presumably based upon different kinds of jobs, could, in effect, be equated as the same kind of work being done but similar pay not being given for work of equal value. Could the minister develop that particular point with respect to equal opportunity for women within the public service?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to read into the record some brief notes which were prepared for me for these purposes and which will, I think, give the member some background.

Ministry activity in this area was initiated at the direction of my predecessor (Mr. White) early in 1974. I may say there was no one on the Treasury benches who was more dedicated to doing something positive about the role of women in government and in our society generally, insofar as government particularly is concerned, and he has championed the cause, if I can put it that way, loudly and well.

Prior to the publication of the government’s green paper on equal opportunities, my predecessor was involved in this and as I say championed the cause with a view to identifying the problems which exist in the promotion, development and advancement of women, and the development of a programme to encourage and promote equal opportunity within the ministry. An equal opportunity resource team was established under the direction of the general manager. Administration for this purpose and the initial programmes were developed and implementation was commenced. With the subsequent development of a staff development committee, the women’s coordinators’ office and the women’s advisory committee the equal opportunity resource team was disbanded and programme responsibilities undertaken by these new units within the ministry. Top-level support has been provided by the minister and the deputy minister and by the policy committee of the ministry in a continuing role of policy development and programme monitoring.

Prior to the publication of the guidelines, two meetings were held with Treasury women employees. At the first meeting on June 13, 1974, the minister and the deputy minister discussed the particular concerns of women employees including day care maternity leaves, staff development and the work situation of Treasury women employees compared to men. Plans for an equal opportunity staff development programme were outlined.

The second meeting was held on July 16, 1974, and focused on a paper prepared by an ad hoc group of women employees outlining their concerns and recommendations for action. My predecessor agreed to many of the recommendations, including the establishment of an advisory committee composed of elected representatives of women employees. A draft staff development programme for all employees was described by the minister and the deputy minister.

This programme is designed to provide increased opportunities for training and development of all personnel with particular application for affirmative action for women employees and long-term manpower planning. It includes a basic orientation programme for all new employees; a management apprenticeship programme to develop first line supervisory and management skills; a bridge job programme to provide support staff with structures and programmes which will allow them to move into professional, administrative or technical levels; and a job enrichment programme to allow broader scope, flexibility and variety in job activities.

In addition to the minister’s announcement at these meetings, the equal opportunity action programme was announced in the ministry staff bulletin in July, 1974. This was reinforced when I became Treasurer in 1975. I met with the women’s advisory committee and reaffirmed the government’s commitment to equal opportunity for women. My statement was published in the ministry newsletter in March 1975.

The minister, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister were briefed initially by the general manager on the purpose and benefits of the staff development programme and have kept fully informed as progress and implementation have taken place. In addition, the general manager and his resource team held meetings with the executive directors and directors to make them aware of the programmes and their intent. Managers and supervisors have been involved in planning and monitoring the management apprenticeship programme, and participated in the identification of positions and employees appropriate for the various staff development programmes. The involvement of managers in policy development has been intensified since January, 1974.

The women’s coordinator and organization development staff reached senior and middle management on the affirmative action guidelines regarding this ministry’s progress to date and has received their input for future planning. The women’s coordinator has made presentations on the programme to several employee groups at the request of branch directors. Meetings with staff in the four regional offices are planned for the summer. Ongoing policy involvement is provided through periodic meetings between the women’s coordinator and the policy committee, the senior management committee of the ministry.

The position of women’s coordinator was advertised in Topical in September, 1974, and in the Globe and Mail, also in September, 1974. Glenna Carr was appointed and joined the staff on Nov. 12, 1974. This is a new full-time position at the executive officer 3 level, reporting directly to the deputy minister. Her office is currently located on the sixth floor of the Frost Building North, Queen’s Park.

The function of this office involves the design, coordination and promotion of programmes and policies to encourage the advancement of women employees, including the coordination of policy recommendations and advice to senior management on the recruitment, promotion, development and utilization of women employees, and the design and coordination of special projects and activities of interest to women, with recommendations that they be implemented by the ministry, such as day care, maternity leave, International Women’s Year, and appointments to boards or commissions. These duties are performed in coordination and with the assistance from the organization development group of the management services branch.

Other responsibilities of the women’s coordinator include chairing the women’s advisory committee, advising policy committee, membership of the staff development committee, liaison for Treasury with external groups and agencies regarding affirmative action and issues of concern to women, and monitoring and reporting on the affirmative action programme. Monitoring of the programme in relation to overall staff development is also carried out by the organizational development group.

The salary and expenses of the women’s coordinator and assistant come from the ministry’s central office budget. Additional programme resources are provided indirectly through other branches and from the organization development budget in the administration programme. Such expenditures have included, for example, the cost of the two-day, $1,300 development workshop for the women’s advisory committee, and a $6,000 allocation for International Women’s Year projects. The costs of regular staff development and training programmes are charged back to individual branches or covered by the personnel administration branch.

Mr. Stokes: How many have you got in key positions in your ministry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’re coming to that. The women’s advisory committee, WAC, was established on July 22, 1974, as a result of the minister’s second meeting with women employees. The committee has 40 members elected by the women in all branches of the ministry. Membership is based on a proportional representation of the branch size and the job categories of the women. All members of the WAC are women employees. Men participate on some of the subcommittees.

Since the women’s coordinator came on staff, there have been four meetings, one each month. Prior to November, 1974, nine meetings were held. Through the women’s coordinator, the committee provides recommendations and programme proposals to senior management, monitors the programme and informs their branch staff about WAC activities.

Subcommittees have been set up by the WAC to examine and report on particular tasks or problems. At the time of this report there are eight subcommittees. The coordinating committee plans the monthly WAC meetings and coordinates the work of the subcommittees. The résumé and interview workshop committee has developed and offered seven workshops to Treasury staff on how to develop résumés and applications. It is currently developing a programme for workshops and interview participation.

The programme development committee monitors and makes proposals for policy and programme activities in relation to the management apprenticeship, bridge job and job enrichment programmes, and other staff development activities.

The information and attitude survey committee has prepared a questionnaire for all employees to gather information on any barriers to the advancement of women on additional programmes which would support equal opportunity and to identify current attitudes of men and women toward the equal opportunity programme.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member state his point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister not think that material such as this would be more useful to the critics before the estimates? I’m sure he has at least 38 hours of material which has been prepared under the various headings that we could have had a much more fruitful debate if this material had been supplied in advance rather than given to the minister in order that he could fill time with it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I certainly think that’s something we will take into account before another year’s estimates, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the minister’s positive response, would he consider making the other briefing material he has available by tomorrow morning, let’s say, so that the critics can use it and we can get on to some real debate?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll certainly take that into consideration, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. minister continue, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The International Women’s Year committee has arranged a ministry programme of six lectures on the International Women’s Year theme of equality and development. The first speaker on May 16 was Dr. Jill Conway, vice-president of the University of Toronto. Dr. Conway will be followed by lawyer Rosalie Abella.

A part-time survey committee designed a survey to test the percentage of ministry staff interested in permanent part-time employment. The results, which favoured this approach, are to be publicized.

The daycare and maternity committee researched locations and costs of day care; single-parent priorities; absence rates among working mothers; and the entrance age for day care. This committee liaises with the Queen’s Park daycare committee and is also studying the potential of training students in a daycare project.

The information and monitoring committee liaises with the information services branch and administration division of Treasury before the publication of bulletins dealing with women. Currently, this committee is studying Civil Service Commission course structures and guidelines, the selection board process, inter-ministry salary statistics .and the status of Treasury women.

To compare the status and utilization of men and women employees in the ministry, a comprehensive data base has been compiled in accordance with the guidelines prepared by the women Crown employees office. This information will also serve as a benchmark against which progress may be measured. There are certain tables here.

Perhaps, summarizing it, as of March 31, 1973, at the higher salary level, there were 19 women and 221 men in Treasury earning $15,000 plus. As of March 31, 1975, the number of women has risen to 55, the number of men to 272. The percentage increase for women is from two per cent of the total to eight per cent; for the men, 27 per cent to 39 per cent.

These figures also indicate an improvement in the number of women occupying higher level positions. Over the two-year period, the number of women earning in excess of $15,000 has increased by 36 or some 189 per cent. The absolute numbers for women are relatively small when compared with the number of men earning in this bracket. However, it is important to note that while the percentage of women at these levels has increased significantly, the percentage of men at equivalent levels has increased at a much more moderate degree.

I think perhaps that might complete this summary of what we are doing within the ministry. There are breakdowns of certain other programmes, but I think that for this moment that does complete it. I’ll be glad to make this material available to the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Kitchener because of their particular interest in this matter.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I almost regret to ask any further questions in case the answers are equally voluminous. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to submit a list of questions to me which he would like to be asked because he’s particularly prepared to answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Give us the answers and see if we can work out the questions.

Mr. Breithaupt: My friend from Thunder Bay has a couple of questions that he may put at this point that may not have the same preparation that we have just witnessed.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, on that first vote, Mr. Chairman --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is an expert in this area as well.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t profess to be an expert on any particular subject or in any particular matter.

Mr. Worton: But you have that right, Jack. You are a long way from home.

Mr. Stokes: I still have the right to stand up and question the minister on things that I think are of concern, particularly to the people who sent me here.

I want to ask the minister, in terms of overall policy and the actual structure of his ministry, how he sees it, now that he’s had an opportunity to be the minister on two separate occasions for Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, and since a certain responsibility has been taken from your ministry, since the Ministry of Housing has been formed, dealing particularly with the Planning Act and the functions that it has taken unto itself.

It seems to me that there is a lack of a certain kind of cohesion that’s necessary to assist municipalities concerning subdivisions, concerning official plans, concerning zoning bylaws. It seems to me that there is such a fragmentation that I even get mayors of municipalities asking me now, to whom should they go for a particular authority to enact a bylaw, or where would they go to get the kind of advice that may be necessary so that they would stay on the right track.

I sense a certain degree of uneasiness among municipal officials, whether they are elected or whether they are salaried employees. They seem to be in a quandary as to what are the responsibilities of TEIGA and what are the responsibilities that have been hived off into other ministries. I think this is unfortunate.

Certain comments were made by my colleague, the member for Wentworth, and the minister didn’t choose to reply to them directly, because he said his parliamentary assistant was much more knowledgeable in this field, and when we got to vote 1005 perhaps the parliamentary assistant would be available and might be able to answer in some more detail some of the points that were raised by my colleague. This worries me, because I happen to think that this minister is one of the better ministers over there and he’s quite responsive to anything that you bring to his attention.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is the only minister over there.

Mr. Stokes: He is the only one at the moment, but even when they are all there he happens to be one of the more effective members of cabinet. I would like to think that the minister who is responsible for Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs was capable of answering all of the questions that fall within the purview of this ministry.

I happen to think, as a result of my own observations and what I am hearing now from municipal officials, that this ministry is becoming so all-pervasive that it’s really too-big for any one man, and I happen to think that the municipal officials have come to believe that it’s so unwieldly that it’s almost too difficult for them to cope with. So I’m just wondering if the minister, now that he’s had the experience of a couple of years, maybe three or four years I guess, in this portfolio, whether he himself now feels that there should be some reorganization, some division of powers, some hiving off, something much smaller, much more capable of being talked to and responding to the needs of municipalities, whether it be regional government, whether it be Metropolitan Toronto, whether it be a small community in the north or whether it be an unorganized community that is aspiring to some form of municipal organization. Does the minister not feel now that it’s time really to give the municipalities a sense of direction by giving them some entity that they are capable of coping with?

When you look through the estimates book or when you look though the government directory and see the all-pervasive responsibilities of this ministry, I am just wondering, are you of the same opinion as I am that there should be some form of reorganization that makes this ministry much more accessible to municipalities, that will allow them to understand what the function is and to make the minister much more responsive to the needs and the aspirations of municipalities rather than hiving it off to one or two parliamentary assistants?

It has always been said since I’ve been down here that it was the aim of government over on the other side to make government more responsive to the needs of people and to make government more accessible to the people and their elected officials at the municipal level. I sense that this isn’t happening. I sense a good deal of frustration with regard to the kind of red tape that municipalities are experiencing in getting approvals for things that your people are responsible for. I would just like some comment from the minister as to what direction he sees this ministry going vis-à-vis municipalities.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member has raised several points. I’m not sure that I’ll answer all the points he has raised but I’ll start and then he can come back to me with what I haven’t answered.

I can answer most of the questions put by the member for Wentworth with respect to Hamilton-Wentworth and will at the appropriate time. What the member for Wentworth was particularly talking about was the problems of Stoney Creek related to their this year’s tax bill. The Minister without Portfolio has been much more deeply involved in that particular item than I have been. I would much prefer if he were here to handle that question at the appropriate time, although if he is not I can do so. That’s all I meant by that particular comment.

I should perhaps say that there isn’t a clearly defined split between the responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio and the Treasurer. I don’t think there was before particularly when the present Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) was the Minister without Portfolio, nor was there particularly when I was Treasurer before, when at that point there were two parliamentary assistants. To some extent, it’s done on a bit of an ad hoc basis, although I think it is fair to say that gradually we are trying to divide the workload or the responsibility, which is a better way of putting it, for what would be considered municipal affairs -- that is, local government organization, particularly local government services, including money matters but not including the local government finance which, very properly, I think remains with the Treasurer as part of his budget.

That’s one of the great reasons for bringing the two things together. I mean local government services, local government organization, what we used to refer to as the services to the clerks and treasurers -- there may not always be clerks and treasurers in a particular municipality, but that whole area. That is generally the direction in which the present Minister without Portfolio and myself are sorting things out.

I am keeping to myself the traditional things pertaining to Treasury, such as the budget and ongoing budgetary matters, the financing of the province, and matters pertaining to economics in the broad sense, both provincial and regional, and intergovernmental insofar as they affect the province’s relations with the senior government or with other governments, although a great deal of that is done by the ministries themselves. Under that vote, we can talk about this.

We have a monitoring role -- not a monitoring role; sometimes they think we are spying, but that’s not really the case. We attempt to provide assistance and, wherever we can, try to make sure that the government’s approach, in its relationship with the government of Canada or with other provinces, is consistent.

It’s very easy for the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) to think one thing makes good sense in his area of the province, and for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and perhaps the Treasurer to think that that makes no sense whatsoever.

More than anything else, I think, we do try to get our direction, not just from the Treasurer but from cabinet as a whole and from the Premier, as to our intergovernmental stance, our posture and our policy, and then we try to ensure that there is a consistency of approach.

I have digressed a little bit from what I wanted to say, but I suppose that is the sort of relationship that is breaking down, but it depends, among other things, on the time of the year. When the Treasurer is busy, as he is for a couple of months of the year, then the Minister without Portfolio probably is taking on many more responsibilities of a diverse kind than he would during the remainder of the year. Generally, the responsibility for the county restructuring programme, for the legislative programme of the ministry, which remains large, for local government organization and for local government services will be, I think, the responsibility of the Minister without Portfolio with responsibilities for municipal affairs.

A member asked how it stacks up compared to having been there before. I go back a step further than that, because we are really talking about three ministries in many ways -- well, we are talking about two ministries but with spinoffs to two other ministries. When Municipal Affairs came into Treasury, of course in terms of number of employees or complement -- or money for that matter -- there were enormous spinoffs at that time into Revenue. There was the assessment programme, which was a big workload for the deputy and for the minister in Municipal Affairs. There was the Ontario Municipal Board, which took some time in terms of appeals or the consideration of appointments; that was spun off to the Attorney General. There were several others at that time.

Since I have come back, the whole plans administration branch -- what used to be known as the community planning branch -- has gone to the Ministry of Housing. When I was Minister of Municipal Affairs I think it would be fair to say that at least 25 per cent of my time, if not a third and perhaps approaching a half -- I would think fairly it could be said up to a half of the time of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs -- was spent on matters pertaining to the plans administration branch, the old community planning branch. In fairness, some of that has already reverted to local government.

I got a big kick, in going around the province on my recent tour, from hearing the -- oh, there’s a word I like to use but I won’t use it, I say to Hansard -- the complaining about the land division committees, the committees of adjustment and the whole severance procedures. These are committees that are appointed by local governments. Whether the legislation is perfect or not -- and certainly I don’t think they have had long enough to function to iron out all the wrinkles -- I must say in many instances it’s music to my ears.

I think of a gentleman in the back row, who is not here at the moment on this side of the House who, when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs -- I look at the gentleman who is sitting in the chairman’s chair with great dignity tonight, and I see others in the House, sparse as we are in number -- were in my office time and time again screaming, complaining bitterly about some minion -- that was always the word -- some bureaucrat in the plans administration branch who would have not allowed a severance of a farm in township XYZ, and it should have been allowed. One would get into it, and find it was the Minister of Health who held it up, and then it was the local board of health; all that, in the wisdom of the province, in terms of local autonomy, has moved out to the land division committees, to the regional councils, to the local councils, which must be a tremendous burden removed from the Minister of Housing.

But even aside from severances and the problems associated with severances, the whole question of approval of plans for subdivision, of commenting on zoning bylaws of officials plans, all that is moved out of the old Municipal Affairs and out of Treasury into Housing. I don’t want to imply that the Minister of Housing is underworked because he, of course, has taken on the matters pertaining to the Ontario Housing Corp.

I should also point out, of course, that when we put Treasury and Intergovernmental Affairs together, the work of the Treasurer was substantially reduced because the Civil Service Commission and the old Treasury Board both reported to the Treasurer, with different deputies I think at that point in time. Those were not small responsibilities. There was the whole question of collective bargaining, the ongoing process of Management Board, which has since devolved to my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler). My guess would be that in terms of workload. Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, other than the fact that it takes an awful lot longer to say the name than it used to -- I just say Treasury; I refuse to use the long title most of the time -- my guess is that, other than saying it, the workload on the minister and the deputy is probably down to what it was before municipal affairs was added, I think, in terms of the spinoffs and the responsibilities which have evolved elsewhere. Then of course with the addition of a minister -- either a parliamentary assistant, which I would think would be a must, for certainly a Minister without Portfolio, and particularly the present one -- it is that much better. So I think -- and I obviously shouldn’t say this when I’m asking the House for what I’m asking, whatever I’m asking for -- what’s our total? Well, I suppose, really, the Treasurer stands asking for approval of $11.1 billion one way or another, rather than what my own total is -- $450 million. Let Hansard not record that I didn’t know the amount I was asking to be voted tonight.

I shouldn’t be admitting it at this point in time, but I guess in frankness I would say that I’m not called on to work quite as hard, certainly not as hard as I was three years ago, in terms of what is in front of the ministry, and I suspect not as hard as Mr. MacNaughton was required to five years ago when he was both chairman of treasury board and responsible for the Civil Service Commission, and had Treasury and Economics but not municipal affairs.

Now that’s just a guess. I don’t think there is any waste of time, because I think to some extent I have a little bit more time to think about issues and to spend with the staff and with outsiders than I had before -- be they municipalities or bankers or trade unions or whoever -- a little bit more time. And more important, because of the reorganization of government the Treasurer is involved -- they might put it the other way -- more with other ministries. Whether they necessarily appreciate that or not, I doubt it, but I am able, as is the deputy, to spend time with the three policy fields as necessary, particularly with two of them. It is not enough time in many ways, but we try to divide ourselves up on Thursday mornings to get those meetings wherever we can where there are times of concern to us, and the Minister without Portfolio will be doing the same thing.

I am still a member of Management Board. I’m not a very good attender, but I attend when I am needed and when there is something which is of particular concern to us. Then, of course, I attend both cabinet and the Policy and Priorities Board.

I am spread more heavily or thinly -- whatever I am trying to say. There is more internal committee work. Not because of me or anything I am bringing to bear on the job, but it is important in terms of the economic as well as the financial well-being of the province that Treasury does have -- I hate to say it but perhaps that’s what it is -- its tentacles out in as many areas as we can. This applies not just to Treasury itself but to the minister and/or the Minister without Portfolio and the deputy or his assistant deputy minister who are at a very senior level and particularly at the political level. It is important that we are available.

When we come to some of the items in the estimates -- and let me just mention three or four which are not all reflected and this is not by any means all settled -- we are continually looking for other items to spin off, which is the word we use, into other ministries. I think we have to work very hard at being a policy ministry. I refer to policy in terms of finances in the province; policy in terms of the economics of the province, both provincially and regionally, economics in the broad sense; policy in terms of local government; and policy in terms of local government financing and organization.

That’s the role. It is a policy ministry and we are trying to strip out and spin off those things which are administrative or management. Our complement this year has been reduced from 823 to 778. When I was in Treasury before, the complement, as I remember, was something like 1,100 or 1,200. We have come down. I am satisfied that we have further to go. Some of the things that we have been involved in we are now out of and have moved the staff. This doesn’t reflect in the estimates, but we will get to them. Some of them were moved before the estimates and others were moved as of, I think, July 1 and we are still picking away. Haldimand-Norfolk has moved to the Ministry of Housing. North Pickering has moved to the Ministry of Housing, Ontario Land Corp. still is ours but as the financing vehicle only. There are no staff involved.

What else did I write down? We have to move Wasaga Beach at some point or another to the Ministry of Natural Resources. That isn’t tied down as yet. As for townsite development, we obviously have a role in terms of regional economic planning in townsite development in northern Ontario. I am now moving away from southern Ontario a bit. We expect to be involved very much in the initiation and where they should be and perhaps getting them going. Ultimately, they become ours again because 10 years from now they become a full-fledged municipality, perhaps. ha the interim we think there is probably a more appropriate ministry to carry the planning, the building and the assistance forward. We are not entirely sure at any given moment. At some instance it may be the Minister of Natural Resources, at some instances it may be the Minister of the Environment or it may be the Minister of Industry and Tourism à la Edwardsburgh where that properly is lodged. Those are just some of the examples.

My own view is that the northern affairs aspect of the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and I know this is of interest to my friend from Thunder Bay -- has a much larger role to play in the north than perhaps it is doing presently, and Treasury has a correspondingly lesser role in the ongoing programmes. They have the offices, they have the staff, they have the name -- the very great name in northern Ontario -- and the proven track record. But as a matter of general government policy, and as far as Treasury policy is concerned, I am not anxious to duplicate in any way or appear to duplicate what, is there. So, we are looking for those things all the time, not always with success. Some people just don’t want to take some of the fine programmes that we have. I won’t tell the House what those are, but we have trouble.

My colleague on my left, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow), should be doing some of the things that we are doing. The whole municipal subsidies operation perhaps should be in Government Services or in the Ministry of Revenue.

An hon. member: I wasn’t wrong.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are not sure. But those are the things we are looking at further to reduce the workload of, not Treasury itself, but the minister and deputy -- who must be protected at all times; no, I am being facetious -- but to try to keep it a policy ministry.

I am not surprised that my friend, the member for Thunder Bay, would have heard from some municipalities that they are a little concerned and confused. I think this will take a little time to sort out. Basically, I think Treasury’s ongoing involvement in local government will be organization and advice-clerk-treasurer sort of thing; local government finance, certainly; local government services, certainly. But, police will be through the Solicitor General; fire through the Solicitor General; sewer and water through the Minister of the Environment; health and welfare through the social development policy field. Generally, planning is at the micro-level, as opposed to a regional plan. That line shifts, and I am the first to admit that it shifts back and forth in the Ministry of Housing.

With what is now suggested to be moved -- the planning policy branch and local planning policy -- I doubt very much whether really any of the Planning Act will be left with the Treasurer. It is now nearly all in the Ministry of Housing. I would expect that our recommendation to the Planning Act review will be, “For heaven’s sake, get it all over there; or split it off into two Acts; if there is something we should still have separated out.” Thus, the municipalities clearly understand that the Planning Act generally will be the Act of the Minister of Housing, rather than ours.

That’s a long answer. What didn’t I answer that the members might like to have had answered or discussed?

Mr. Stokes: I just want to get clarification of one thing. I want to thank the minister for his answer to that question, and get some insight into how he sees the ministry functioning. But will the Treasurer give me some assurance or give the municipalities some assurance that he will still maintain the function for overseeing all of the spending of all the ministries?

I am thinking in particular of his regional priorities budget, because frankly, Mr. Chairman, I was quite impressed with the minister and his grip of what is going on with other policy fields -- whether it be the justice policy field, or whether it be the social development field or the resources development field. if there isn’t somebody to whom those municipalities can come and talk directly -- if they have to go and deal with four or five ministries -- I am telling you that they become so frustrated and so disillusioned that they don’t know which way to turn. I think this minister has the capacity to coordinate and have an overview of their needs.

Of course, the meeting that we had last Tuesday was an excellent example of that. I know that all of the participants were very appreciative of the minister’s interest and his knowledge of their problems and the interest that the minister showed in them. I would like to have some assurance from the minister that he will continue that role, because it takes somebody who has that overall view of the thing and the authority to cut through the red tape on their behalf in order to get the show on the road. As you know, the very thing we were talking about last Tuesday has to have some overall coordinating presence in order to make the thing work. Without that kind of presence these things will not come to fruition at all, and I would just like that assurance from the minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t assure you that it’s always going to be Treasury. We often find we are filling this role by default or because it isn’t clear whose responsibility it is.

In the particular case my friend has mentioned in terms of the five municipalities affected by Kimberly-Clark’s very large expansion there’s a population of -- what did we guess the other day? -- roughly 9,000 people in those five municipalities. We are looking at a very quick growth of probably a minimum of 6,000 people; and if there is some mining activity 6,000 is just the beginning, so it’s a tremendous growth over the next three or four years.

Who should be responsible? The initiators, I suppose, were Natural Resources; Industry and Tourism has an interest; the Ministry of Housing has an interest, a large interest. The whole social development field does, in terms of hospitals, community services, education and so on. The Ministry of the Environment is going to be called on.

Who brings all that together? It has quite often been Treasury -- and there are several other examples -- through the regional development branch or somehow or another, which has been thrust into that role and we will follow this one through.

I am not sure we are always the right people to be doing it; perhaps somebody else should be doing it but I am not sure who. The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) and the government are coming to the view -- not coming to the view; but in a case such as the Kimberly-Clark expansion, the first thing will be to identify very quickly -- which can come from anywhere; perhaps from the hon. member himself -- that there is an emerging problem. Particularly, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and his staff, small as it is -- the half-dozen people he has -- will ensure that some ministry will do it; perhaps he will use his own little staff but more often he will designate a lead ministry. In the case of Kimberly-Clark, it might have been the Ministry of Natural Resources, to which he’d say: “Okay, let’s put everybody to work on this. You, the Minister of Natural Resources, put together a learn from the various ministries which are affected. Your guy chairs it and your guy reports to the Minister of Natural Resources. It may work that way. That’s the lead ministry concept.

I would imagine in a number of instances it is going to be Treasury and it may vary between northern and southern Ontario. I can assure the member that because of our concern for the municipalities we are always going to be involved and we must be. It is all very well for the Minister of Natural Resources and the member for Thunder Bay to congratulate each other on the magnificent expansion plans of Kimberly-Clark; it is the poor old municipalities for which I am responsible who have to pick up the tab.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t think there’s much point in continuing, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to say some words about the criticisms which have been made of the minister’s role as chief planner for Ontario by the central Ontario lakeshore urban complex task force. Unfortunately the time has run out for this evening.

I was interested in what the minister had to say before, because it seems to me he should have more time to engage in concerning himself with the planning of the province. It’s a pity, in my view, that he isn’t using that time more fruitfully. I see it’s 10:30 o’clock and I don’t know whether we will have a chance to get to this estimate again before the election. It’s a pity we can’t get the matter on the record, but perhaps we can try tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Keep going. They are waiting for the report.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre may wish to continue.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, I will say a few words, Mr. Chairman; thanks very much.

The minister spoke in a fairly discursive way. I want to keep the same tone and try not to get too controversial with him. I do want to express, on behalf of my party, grave concern with the way in which the planning of the province is proceeding and, in particular, the planning of the Toronto-centred region because so much of the economic activity of the province is in this region. It’s a theme we have returned to a number of times in the past. In fact, I looked at some notes from the 1972 estimates for this ministry -- two or three Treasurers ago, when Mr. McKeough was then the Treasurer -- and find that the themes have changed very little.

However, I have with me a report of the minister’s own planners along with other people from the regional municipalities concerned. Since he’s more liable to listen to his own people than to New Democrats, I would suggest that we have here a damning indictment of the way in which provincial planning for the Toronto-centred or Lakeshore region has proceeded over the last 10 years. The fact is that the Toronto-centred region programme is failing and that the planners find it very difficult to see how it’s going to work. They put forward some very serious recommendations to the ministry about how to make it work, but they express grave doubts that the ministry will actually do so.

The COLUC plan, Mr. Chairman, is intended to be a refinement of the Toronto-centred region plan. It proposes that there be four economic sub-regions as alternatives to Toronto -- which would be north of Metro, in Oshawa, in Mississauga and in Hamilton. The planners confirm many things that we’ve said in this House on regional government bills -- for example, about the confusion that is created by the existence of both the Halton and Peel regional municipalities -- and they confirm the problems that we have suggested to the ministry about its failure to do anything concrete to take growth to the east.

The one concrete measure which the government has taken to move growth to the east to implement the Toronto-centred region plan has been the creation of a new town in Pickering. That’s been cut down a couple of times, it’s too close to Toronto to be effective, and there are grave concerns that that will work at all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think if I might interrupt the member, I gather we are not waiting for downstairs now, so perhaps the member might find it convenient to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister tantalizes me. He talks in the most discursive fashion possible, and then lets me go on and then I have to end. You know, Mr. Chairman, when I ask the minister questions he replies in monosyllabic grunts. However, when the member for Thunder Bay asks, his strophes are endless. All right, we’ll return to this matter tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It depends on who you are. He is a very decent chap doing a decent job.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed with item 13, Bill 143, then we’ll return to the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury, Economies and Intergovernmental Affairs. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) cannot be with us tomorrow evening, so if the debate goes beyond that period of time we will be discussing the budget tomorrow evening.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I was in mid-flight, more or less, did the minister say the Treasury estimates would come back tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Right.

Mr. Cassidy: Treasury? Okay, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.