Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Davis) answered a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) on last weekend’s accident at Bruce nuclear station by referring to a report he had received on the matter, which I have here.

The Premier said the report was fairly complex, which was apparently his excuse for pretending to quote from it instead of reading it in total. The Premier also declined to table the report so that all members could read it.

I quote the Premier from yesterday’s instant Hansard: “I do have a report here related to this particular incident. I could read it. It is fairly complex. Suffice it to say that the two workers were exposed, as the press has indicated, to radiation levels of 5.5. Putting this in perspective -- not being an expert in these areas -- I am informed this is somewhat comparable to the radiation one would receive from a series of back X-rays, and something less than if you were having an X-ray for say ulcers -- which the members opposite might know more about.”

Mr. Speaker, what the report actually said in this regard was as follows: “It was at this point that two workers were exposed to radiation levels of 5.5 and eight rems respectively.” The annual limit for atomic workers is five rems, but the Premier did not mention the eight rems. Then there is an asterisk at this point indicating a footnote which is as follows: “In comparison, a series of back X-rays will result in an exposure of eight rems and a barium type ulcer X-ray in 20 rems.”

My point of privilege is to correct the record so that all members may know what was actually said.

First, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) should know because if there are barium X-ray procedures in this province producing a radium exposure of 20 rems, I’m sure he’ll want to put a stop to it.

Second, since the Premier took occasion yesterday to lecture the House on political responsibility, the record should show how responsible the Premier was in distorting what the report actually said.

Mr. Speaker: While the alleged point of privilege raised by the member for Grey-Bruce arose out of a statement made yesterday by the Premier, then I think it’s only right we give the Premier an opportunity to respond once he arrives.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FLOOD DAMAGE

Hon. M. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as was reported in the Legislature by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle), I spent most of yesterday visiting several areas in northeastern Ontario which have been very seriously affected by flooding.

As a result of my firsthand inspection of the situation, meetings with local municipal officials in those areas and consultations with staff, certain actions have been taken as provided under the government’s emergency response policies.

As members know, under the lead ministry concept adopted by the government, which gave responsibility for responding to various emergency situations, my ministry was identified as the ministry responsible for the delivery of the response of government to flood and forest fire emergencies. The organization developed to discharge this responsibility entailed the appointment of a provincial flood co-ordinator and local response co-ordinators in each of the ministry district offices. The local response co-ordinator was given the key responsibility for developing response plans which would support municipal contingency plans in the event of a flood occurrence.

The system established included a mechanism for declaration of a provincial flood emergency as the trigger mechanism for providing the response of government to a flood occurrence. Since the severity of the flooding came to my attention on Saturday last, I have declared two flood emergencies: One on Saturday in Field township, and one yesterday in nearby Springer township; both on the Sturgeon River whose levels have risen by as much as 15 feet above normal, the highest for that river on record.

I took this action because: One, there was a major threat to the safety and welfare of local residents, including the potential for loss of life and severe property damage; two, the local response co-ordinator was satisfied that all resources available to the municipalities were committed and there was a need for additional resources which the province could provide; three, requests for provincial assistance were conveyed directly to me by the reeves of Field and Springer townships; four, I was satisfied that a provincial response was warranted under the particular circumstances.

Yesterday I flew over the Sturgeon River from Lake Nipissing below Sturgeon Falls through the Crystal Falls, Field and River Valley areas, then up the Temagami River branch of the river system to Red Cedar Lake.

To give members some indication of the extent to which the Sturgeon River has risen, yesterday there was a flow of 32,000 cubic feet per second recorded at the Crystal Falls hydro installation. The highest previous flow in nearly 50 years was recorded at 21,000 cubic feet per second in 1960. The water level appeared to have stabilized at 5:30 this morning and we are hopeful the situation will improve further.

Yesterday, I and senior staff met with the reeve, Dr. Nicole Patenaude, and some members of his council in the local school at Field, one of the few buildings in the community that is still above the flood waters. Reeve Patenaude told me flood levels in Field exceed anything within living memory. Previous severe flooding occurred in 1928 and in 1960, with a less severe flood in 1970.

Dr. Patenaude is spearheading the fight against the flood in Field, as well as looking after the needs of the unorganized communities upstream such as River Valley, and those downstream such as Crystal Falls. The reeve indicated to me the loss of equipment, supplies and furnishings will be great because nobody expected the flood waters to rise so high. As a result, access to houses and businesses was cut off before the flood severity became apparent. Reeve Patenaude estimated that 150 to 200 homes in the Field area are flooded, as well as the entire business section of the community. Also of grave concern is the damage to business and industry in the entire valley. The Field Lumber Company, for example, has lost much of its logs and its lumber. The plant is under water and may be lost also.

Following my meeting with Field officials, I met in Sturgeon Falls with the mayors and reeves representing the municipalities in the west Nipissing area. There I learned of similar problems confronting those communities, especially in Springer township at the lower end of the Sturgeon River. Shortly after, at the request of Reeve Maurice Mantha, I declared the flood emergency for Springer township. This means a provincial flood emergency declaration now effectively covers all of the Sturgeon River valley.

Elsewhere, there have been severe floods, but none so serious as in the Sturgeon River area. In Iron Bridge, 20 residences have been flooded, as well as a nursing home. All occupants have been evacuated to local friends’ or relatives’ homes. The Mississagi River may not have crested and additional flooding may be experienced. Wanup, an unorganized community on the Wahnapitae River, has suffered flooding and nine families have been evacuated. At Timmins-South Porcupine the Metagami River has surrounded 20 to 30 homes. Levels have crested and are expected to decline. At Latchford the Montreal River is rising and six to 12 homes may ultimately be affected if the rise continues.

In Dowling township, the Vermilion and Onaping Rivers have forced evacuation of about 20 families. Levels appear to have peaked north of Highway 17. At Chapleau, flooding has closed highway 101 to Timmins as well as highway 129. Many other industrial roads are closed due to flooding; Biscotasing is isolated. At Temagami, Lake Temagami continues to rise, threatening damage to recreational properties and buildings. At Moosonee-Moose Factory, breakup on the Moose River increased river levels by 12 feet and nearly reached bank-full conditions. Other Hudson Bay lowland rivers are breaking up but no flooding of Indian communities has yet developed.

In Ottawa, minor flooding has occurred at Constance Bay and Britannia. The flood peak has now passed Ottawa. Areas now flooded will remain flooded until upstream storage is depleted somewhat. I might add that my staff yesterday afternoon issued an advisory bulletin to Ottawa River area residents, informing them via radio and television that the crest would be passing through.

[2:15]

Since the first flood emergency was declared on Saturday, Earl Rogers, district manager at North Bay, has been co-ordinating the delivery of the provincial response to the municipalities. A meeting of all involved provincial ministries and the reeve and council of Field took place this morning to decide on needs and strategy and to co-ordinate actions to deal with the emergency. In addition to Natural Resources, ministries represented were Community and Social Services, Health, Environment, Transportation and Communications and the Solicitor General. Among matters discussed were emergency accommodation and feeding needs for the people displaced and equipment and supplies for the affected communities.

On Friday the Canadian Forces base at North Bay, at the request of the province, responded with both manpower and vehicles. As well, the Ontario Provincial Police assigned a helicopter to the area, and my ministry has leased a helicopter which is on standby in Sturgeon Falls. Once the initial emergency has been dealt with, the task of clean-up, repairs, rehabilitation and rebuilding must begin.

At this point, the second program of provincial aid will become effective, namely the Ontario disaster relief assistance program which is administered by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. This will provide financial assistance on a matching dollar-for dollar basis, that is the province will contribute to a disaster relief fund one dollar for every dollar raised locally to aid the victims.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not good enough.

Mr. Breithaupt: There’s not much of a base to build on there.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The funds are to be used to assist some 300 owners to repair, or in some instances to replace or rebuild, their principal residences or their small businesses or farm buildings and equipment damaged or destroyed by the flood.

Mr. Cassidy: How do they raise money when they are under water?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yesterday, following my tour of the stricken area, I received a resolution on behalf of the townships of Field, Cache Bay, Caldwell and Springer and the town of Sturgeon Falls, with a number of unorganized areas yet to be named, requesting that the government of Ontario declare this area a disaster area so that the program may be made available to help in this very needy situation.

In the absence of my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), who is in the west fulfilling a previous commitment and who is responsible for the administration of this program, I intend to put this request before my cabinet colleagues tomorrow for their consideration. I might add it has my full support and sympathy. The ratio in respect to the provincial contribution will be determined at that time.

In respect to the communities in the Sudbury, Blind River and Sault Ste. Marie areas referred to previously, financial help has also been requested under the disaster relief assistance program. Officials of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will be visiting these communities this week and will submit their report immediately following their return.

Special arrangements will have to be made for unorganized communities, that is the combining of unorganized with the organized communities as one disaster relief area.

Mr. Wildman: What if there isn’t any organized community in the area?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is prepared to accept an application for declaration of a disaster relief area from a local roads board, school board or other organization representing a sector of the local population.

In closing, I would like to inform the Legislature that the Premier is en route to, or he may be en route back from, the Sturgeon River area where he went to view the situation for himself. We are satisfied, for the moment, that everything this government can do to relieve this very serious situation has been done. Members may be assured that I will continue to keep them abreast of any new developments which may occur.

FAMILY UNITY MONTH

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of and on behalf of my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), I would like to advise members of the House that the month of May has been proclaimed as Family Unity Month in Ontario. I am pleased to say that it has become an Ontario tradition during this month to promote an awareness of the value of family life and to encourage families to spend time together.

In this International Year of the Child, the spirit of Family Unity Month emphasizes even more dramatically the central place of families. I can think of no greater asset to Ontario’s children than the love and support of a family.

The government of Ontario has long been concerned about maintaining the independence of Ontario’s families. Legislation passed in the fields of family law and child welfare represents one important aspect of our commitment to strengthening family life.

The family is our most important social institution. It is the position of this government that families must be the focus for the development of social policy; and I do not mean just for government policies.

Mr. Warner: The provincial secretary should make this statement about families. She’s a female Archie Bunker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We in government must realize that social policy is also made by religious institutions, volunteer groups, business, labour and the media.

Government and non-government groups need to get together with families to talk about the needs and aspirations of families as well as the social pressures which threaten them. If families are to be the focus of social policy in Ontario, they should be involved in a process of discussion about what this means for their lives and the wellbeing of their members.

Mr. Cassidy: But the government will never listen.

Hon. Mr. Norton: My colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development is doing important work in this area.

Mr. Martel: If you ask her a question, she won’t know the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Even in this family every member should have an opportunity to be heard.

Hon. Mr. Norton: As Provincial Secretary for Social Development, she plans to encourage a wide spectrum of Ontario residents to promote the interests of families. In consultation with religious institutions, volunteer groups and agencies which assist families, she is preparing a discussion paper about families for release later this month. The paper is intended to stimulate discussion about families and to reach out to those interested in families and social policies. I am sure this paper will be part of an open exchange of information and opinions by all concerned parties.

I know that members will be interested in a public discussion about Ontario’s families. Those who become involved in the process will have much to work for and think about, and Ontario families will benefit.

Mr. Cassidy: The way the minister marks Family Unity Month is to take his wife out for lunch.

MINI-SKOOLS LIMITED

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 12, the member for Bellwoods issued a news release publicizing allegations about the Kingsview II Mini-Skool day-care centre in Scarborough. Later that day he raised some of those allegations in question period. I wish to advise the House of the results of our investigation into all of those allegations. It has been alleged that the physical and emotional safety of children has been in serious jeopardy.

The first and most important allegation was that the staff-child ratios of the Day Nurseries Act were being violated. Our investigations have revealed this to be a valid cause for concern. While ratios are not below standard throughout the entire day, there have been times in the early morning and late afternoon when the required ratios have not been met. Such a shortage of staff could have exposed children to some risk. I do not share the view of the member for Bellwoods that the children were in need of protection under the Child Welfare Act, but I do feel that day-nursery standards have at times been violated. I should explain that standards under the Day Nurseries Act are considerably higher, and serve a different purpose, than those under the Child Welfare Act.

It is essential that all day-care centres, both public and private, meet the staff-child ratios of the act at all times, based on the number of children in attendance. I have directed that Mini-Skools immediately comply at all times with all standards under the Day Nurseries Act. To ensure that this is the case with all of the Mini-Skool programs, they will be subject to a special requirement to certify on a daily basis both the number of children in attendance and staff on duty in each program room.

Mr. Martel: They were in trouble back in 1973.

Mr. McClellan: This is about the 10th time you’ve done this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The centres will continue to be carefully monitored at regular intervals throughout the year by our early childhood consultants, and staffing ratios will be reviewed each time. My staff will be making clear to the officials of Mini-Skools that any further noncompliance with the act and regulations will result in the revoking of any licence concerned.

Our investigators have not verified the allegations of food shortages. To ensure that the menus posted reflect the food actually served, spot checks will be arranged involving the ministry’s home economist consultants. In this way they can ensure that servings of appropriate size and nutritional value are being offered.

Our investigation did not verify the other concerns listed by the member for Bellwoods. No shortage of paper supplies was found. The entire high-rise apartment building, not just the day-care centre located on the ground floor, did have a pest problem but the health inspector is satisfied that this is under full control. We did confirm that, in separate incidents, one child suffered a broken leg while in the play yard and a second child suffered a broken collar bone and a third child suffered a broken leg while in a public park under supervision of the centre’s staff. I would point out that those events occurred over a period of three years. There is no evidence that children were being cared for in a manner which would expose them unduly to risk of physical injury.

The investigator is of the opinion that the kitchen and other areas are being kept clean, contrary to the allegations. In each of the four cases of pink eye, a low-grade infection, the children were allowed to remain at the centre on the advice of each child’s doctor. Where there is risk of infection, sick children continue to be sent home.

However, in saying this we do feel that the shortage of staff at certain times may have made it difficult to perform all of the tasks required of staff in a well-run day nursery. It is for this reason that compliance with our standards will be closely monitored.

Finally, I wish to comment on the deaths of two children referred to by the member for Bellwoods. One occurred at Kingsview II Mini-Skool in 1975, the other at King’s Cross Mini-Skool in January 1979. In both cases I have seen reports of the hospital post mortems and the police investigations; death was recorded as being due to sudden infant death syndrome, otherwise known as crib death. My staff has spoken to both coroners and no blame was placed on staff at either centre. The member’s untimely reference to these two deaths, without any real effort on his part to ascertain the causes of the deaths, has itself caused additional unnecessary anguish to the parents and to the staff who cared for the infants.

I have received written complaints from King’s Cross infant teachers who say that their competency and commitment to the infants in their care has been unjustly questioned. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the member for Bellwoods owes an apology to both the parents and the teachers of the infants. I would point out that at the time of the January crib death the infant room was not only staffed by three full-time qualified staff, but an adult volunteer was also present.

I wish to assure the members of the Legislature and all parents who place their children in day-care centres that all of the more than 1,400 day-nursery programs licensed by my ministry will continue to be required to meet and maintain the standards of the Day Nurseries Act and regulations.

Mr. Martel: You’ve been saying that about Mini-Skools since 1973.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Our recent reorganization will enable even closer supervision of programs and I will not hesitate to revoke any licence where violations of standards justify this course of action.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I don’t know why the minister felt it necessary to take a shot at me, but I want to set the record straight. When he said in his statement that I did not make any real effort to ascertain the causes of the deaths, that was not true.

On the morning of April 12 I phoned the office of the chief coroner and spoke to his assistant, asking her if she had any details with respect to either of the deaths.

She had no details at all on the death that occurred in 1975. She said she would get back to me with respect to the death that had occurred in 1979, if she could obtain the information. She phoned me back within about half an hour and indicated to me that a child had been found dead in a baby carriage outside, in the playground of the Kingsview II day-care centre. I understand the date of that death was February 6.

That is the information I had relayed -- I had thought fairly straightforwardly -- to the minister, with a request, firstly asking whether he was aware of either of these two incidents and then if he could report to the House with the results of his investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you that I do not feel I need to make an apology for having raised these matters.

DAY CARE POLICY

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yesterday, the matter of conditional or temporary licences was raised. I have recently taken the position that rather than open-ended conditional licences, as was sometimes the case in the past, any conditions attached to a licence should be time limited to ensure speedy compliance with the act. There are at present 43 conditional licences, and 17 of those relate to the need for certain staff to obtain additional upgrading in qualifications. No conditional licence is issued where children would be at risk, and there is no policy that the existence of such licence is a confidential matter. We require, in fact, that each day-nursery operator must post the licence in a prominent spot in the centre, and the licence states any conditions in effect.

For many years this province has been recognized as having the highest day-care standards throughout North America.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad you don’t enforce them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Therefore, I would urge members to contact me personally should they have concerns which they may not be able to substantiate fully. I promise to follow up on these concerns conscientiously and to monitor all programs carefully. You have my personal commitment, Mr. Speaker, as do the members of this House, that the health and the safety of the children of this province will continue to be my ministry’s guiding principle.

[2:30]

VISITOR

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know you would want to join with the other members in welcoming an old friend, Fred Burr, back into this House. He is sitting under the Speaker’s gallery, and we miss him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, following his statement about the floods.

Would the minister not agree that the present accepted procedure of some sort of matching grant for flood relief is completely inadequate, particularly in the situation the Premier has been examining this morning in the community of Field, where there is neither a large industrial assessment nor a large community upon which the grant can be based?

Would the minister not agree it is time we abandoned the fiction that this matching-dollar procedure in any way meets the needs, or is practical in meeting the needs, of those communities where natural disasters have caused such extensive damage?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned in my statement that we would be looking at the grant ratio.

Mr. Nixon: But if the base is nonexistent, you could have 10 to one.

Hon. Mr. Auld: But the situation will vary a great deal in different parts of the province; so I’m not prepared to say that we should abandon the present formula entirely for the future. It may well apply in many -- perhaps the majority of -- cases. But I believe that, as there have been in the past, there will be cases in the future, and perhaps in the present, where we should be looking at something that is a little more realistic in relation to the resources in the community and in that part of the province, for instance.

Mr. Laughren: You don’t understand the Liberal restraint package; that’s your problem.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the case of Field, for instance, the main industry in the community is probably as severely hit as anything else. There are not that many industries -- well, that’s all there is.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Even though the member for Nickel Belt has interjected that he is not in favour of changing the procedure to something more nearly meeting the needs --

Some hon. members: That’s not true.

Mr. Martel: Have you ever tried telling the truth?

Mr. Nixon: -- does the minister not realize that, even though his rather rigid requirements require a municipality -- and he has changed that today -- or some other local organization to apply for designation, the Ministry of Natural Resources is in a position to recognize such a need without going through the stultifying, delaying formality that has grown up as a part of the procedure which we on this side have criticized for many years as being totally inadequate?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the disaster relief fund is administered by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. In fact, the provision I mentioned today of any other board -- local school board or road board -- in an unorganized community or township has been in the provisions, I understand, since the inception of the program.

It just hasn’t been used that often. But even if there is no such elected organization, if there is an association of ratepayers or some group that can speak on behalf of the community and can do the work in the community that is required in terms of assessing damage and some of the complications there, then aid is available.

Mr. Laughren: Point of privilege: I did want to correct the misleading remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, Delhi, Simcoe and Cayuga.

Mr. Nixon: I thought I was correcting yours.

Mr. Laughren: I did not suggest that I was in favour of the funding arrangements that now exist between the provincial government and the people who are the flood victims.

Mr. Nixon: That’s good.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, their funding policies in this are as bankrupt as in all other areas.

Mr. Speaker: I think we get a little bit loose with the rules of the House on occasion. I want to draw to the attention of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that in the rules of debate, standing order 19(9) deals with imputing false or unavowed motives to another member. I think the member’s remark would fall into that category.

Mr. Laughren: Withdraw.

Mr. Nixon: If that’s the case, Mr. Speaker, if you thought I was imputing a motive, I withdraw it. But I assure you I was simply defending myself, and there is no rule against that.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Roy: He wasn’t imputing a motive; he was stating a fact.

Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary to the previous question in relation to the minister’s statement. Could the minister explain if it has been a long-standing practice in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs in areas that are unorganized for local boards such as local roads boards and school boards to apply for designation? If that has been the practice, when I phoned the ministry yesterday why was I informed that the people in the unorganized areas of my riding who have endured flooding would have to organize local committees to apply? Why is that? If the local roads board could have done that, why was not only I but the Ministry of Natural Resources district manager informed of the same thing?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really can’t answer that question. He may have been under the impression there was no local roads board in the immediate area where the damage took place.

Mr. Warner: An unorganized government.

Hon. Mr. Auld: At any rate, I can tell the House today that there are the procedures and if anybody is in doubt he will have been informed within the next day or two.

Mr. Bolan: Supplementary: in view of the fact that the only industry in town, Field Lumber, has suffered a loss totalling close to $1 million; in view of the fact that half of the residents of this community are comprised of senior citizens and people who are unemployed; in view of the fact that Abitibi Forest Products Limited, the largest employer in the Sturgeon Falls area, has had to shut down for four months as a result of this flood, and in view of the fact that the economic base, for all intents and purposes, has been destroyed, how does the minister expect the people of this area to restore their homes and property on this puny, miserly and Scrooge-like offer of dollar for dollar?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can understand the member’s language being perhaps a little severe.

Mr. Peterson: Uriah Heap.

Mr. Bolan: I’m being honest.

Mr. Conway: He’s being very honest.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think if the member would wait and see what decision is reached by the government, then perhaps his words might not be so severe; perhaps they might be more severe, I don’t know.

Also, I don’t want to get into an argument with anybody, but I don’t think it is possible at this stage, to produce any figures as to the amount of damage. From what I was told the damage to Field may be in excess of the amount he mentioned. As far as Abitibi is concerned, I understand, the shutdown may not be as long as he indicated. I believe there has been some problem in the powerhouse. How long that will take to repair won’t be known until the area has been pumped out.

Mr. Wildman: What is the role of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in this whole thing?

Mr. Martel: As it is in everything else -- nothing.

SHORTAGE OF SKILLED WORKERS

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is she aware that Frank Richter, the president of Eastgate Ford of Hamilton, is leaving today for the United Kingdom in an attempt to recruit 200 trained auto mechanics, since evidently there are none available in the job markets in southern Ontario for his service?

An hon. member: Or northern Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: Whether or not she is aware of this, can she explain why our expensive education system, which has been concerned with this for so long, has once again let down industry in Ontario?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, one of the areas in which we have had a consistently high enrolment in apprenticeship programs has been the motive power areas. One would anticipate that in the area of auto mechanics we should have a reasonable supply of skilled people. I was not aware that any such ad had been placed, but I shall investigate it.

Mr. Nixon: Just to clarify this, it isn’t an ad. The gentleman is travelling himself to recruit.

Supplementary: Is the minister further aware -- and if not, would she inform herself -- that the gentleman wrote to T. Philip Adams, assistant deputy minister, college affairs and manpower training division, in March 1978, asking that a test program to train mechanics that had been set up at St. Clair College in Windsor and Algonquin College in Ottawa be extended to Mohawk College in the Hamilton area, and that the reply was that the special program was being discontinued? He has heard nothing since and the shortage has grown to its present proportions.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I was not aware there was any such letter and I shall look into that.

Mr. Haggerty: Shame; you should resign.

Mr. Warner: A colossal failure; you should resign; a total failure.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister take the opportunity, in the wake of these questions, to bring the House up to date on the promises given in the throne speech, as well as the budget speech, about programs she promised to develop with regard to these types of problems? Would the minister bring us up to date now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As soon as all the facets of the program are in place I shall be very pleased to bring the House up to date.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why did the ministry, at a time when the government is trying to encourage more people to come into the apprenticeship programs, increase the module exam fees by 200 per cent?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That was a decision taken on the basis of the cost of providing the examination. It was part of the program that the individual who was going to benefit from it should have some monetary responsibility for the examination which was being held. It is not an inexpensive program to carry out and it was felt there should be more participation on the part of those who were involved in the examination process and who would benefit from it,

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact this represents a private concern going off to the United Kingdom to look for trained workers, rather than looking for them here in Canada, has the ministry monitored the number of firms in Ontario which have gone outside of this country to look for skilled workers? Will the minister report in the next week on how many of these firms are looking for workers abroad and how many workers are coming into this country rather than being found here in this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I’ll try to get whatever information is available and present it to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Erie.

Mr. Haggerty: Last year I directed a question to the minister’s predecessor relating to an agreement with the federal government that provided funding of $272 million to this province for retraining and apprenticeship programs, $108 million of which was to be spent in the year 1978. The reply to my question from the minister at that time was that $18 million was allocated for apprenticeship training programs. Would the minister table all the documents relating to the expenditure of this $272 million and whatever the province has put into it? Where did the money go, to what programs?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will get that information for the House.

Mr. Bolan: It’s gone to feed the pork barrel.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You’re the only pork in the barrel.

[Later (3:30):]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable acting leader of the official opposition suggested in a question he raised this afternoon that Mr. Richter, president of Eastgate Ford, had written to Philip Adams, the assistant deputy minister of college affairs, last year and had not received a reply.

Mr. Nixon: No. I said the only reply he got was an indication that the special program was being wound down.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Because that is not true. Indeed the program had been carried out in two sites in 1976-77 and 1977-78 and was limited to one site, Algonquin College, for the 1978-79 program and has in fact been running. It is being evaluated this year for assessment as to its validity for extension to other colleges and that was the answer which was given to Mr. Richter when the letter was responded to last May.

Mr. Nixon: If I may be permitted a supplementary, why is it that Mr. Richter has to travel to the UK to get 200 mechanics at the present time, because they can’t be filled?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggested that I would try to get that information for the honourable member.

[Reverting (2:45):]

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, arising out of his decision to back down on the commitment to outlaw credit card use in doctors’ offices. In view of the fact the minister apparently arrived at that decision based on the majority of 40 letters he received, and some prodding from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, will the minister act similarly with regard to the cutback of hospital beds across the province?

I have here 66 cutback letters related to the hospital in Goderich. I have 136 letters related to the hospital in Wingham. The member for Port Arthur has more than 2,000 letters related to Thunder Bay hospitals; and we have more than 300 letters related to the proposed 3.5 bed ratio which the minister wants to impose on hospitals across the province. Most of these are letters which have already been received by the minister and of which we have copies. These dwarf the 30 letters he has been getting on the Chargex issue. In view of that fact, does the minister not think it signifies deep public concern about the hospital cutbacks across Ontario and will he not reconsider the bed cutbacks in Ontario public hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, let me remind the member of the exchange between the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and myself a week or two weeks ago, I forget the day, and comment on the report today. I think, with respect, it is misleading to say that I have changed my view of this particular matter. On the principle, I feel as I did before.

It is inappropriate to say that the decision was based simply on letters received, but certainly in my discussions of the matter with people all around the province and on the basis of information which has come to me, it is clear that this particular subject is a threat to the integrity of the health system and, therefore, does not warrant the use of an extraordinary power.

It is something that unquestionably does bear watching. It is a matter which is going to be discussed with the college at my next regular meeting with them in late May or early June, so it is not a matter which is being dropped; rather one which is, as it were, under review.

Let me just comment on the latter part of the member’s question. Some weeks ago I had several productive meetings with delegations from various communities. First of all, I met with a delegation from Goderich. On that day I met, as well, with a delegation from Wingham. I also met with an extensive delegation from Thunder Bay. The fact is, wherever there are difficulties, and there are bound to be difficulties in adjusting to the budgets in some communities, we are dealing with them on an individual basis to help them resolve their problems.

In both of the former cases, as in many communities, there was identified a need to consider conversion of beds for chronic purposes and to recognize that in fact they are being used for chronic purposes.

The planning standard which has been referred to is an appropriate planning standard, recognizing our goal is to have that number of beds available for active or acute care purposes, not a fixed percentage of that number or an ongoing percentage which would at any given point in time be tied up by patients whose needs are other than for acute care.

We want to identify throughout the province -- and this is not something that can be done over one year, but over a number of years -- what the needs are and to meet those needs within the bounds of the money available to us.

So yes, I am aware of those letters. I think we are making good progress in rationalizing the system so that the services and facilities available are in fact appropriate to the actual needs in the community.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is he flip-flops on the question of credit cards for doctors’ care on the basis of what he feels appears to be public opinion, which is a handful of letters, and on the basis of what he hears from the College of Physicians and Surgeons; but despite the fact of having an avalanche of mail and a protest from across the province, coming from medical authorities, from hospital boards and from the general public, all he is prepared to do there is to try to alleviate a little bit the pain of having to conform to the new ministry guidelines?

Is it not the case that whatever the minister's personal opinion is on the bed cutbacks he is making the hospitals across the province adhere to his edict and to the edict of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) of this province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, the member refers to what I have heard from the college. All I have had from the college has been acknowledgement of the letter several months ago. In point of fact, I think the whole idea of power over there is bludgeoning people all over the place into submission.

Mr. Wildman: That’s what you do.

Mr. Martel: What are you doing? Your Tory friends are sneaking in the back door.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In this particular case, the Health Disciplines Act does convey to the Minister of Health and to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a particular authority, a potential authority under that act, which I think should be used sparingly and when it is necessary.

What I’m telling the honourable member is that in this particular case, based on the information about the utilization of these cards, which has come from a variety of sources but in the main from the public, I don’t think this is the time to use that authority. I don’t think it is a threat to the integrity of the system.

Mr. Cassidy: We don’t think it is time to cut back the hospitals the way the minister is doing right now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think the honourable member is missing some very key points -- whether by design or not I don’t know -- about the question of hospitals. In point of fact we have repeatedly made it clear -- and I think that when we’ve had the opportunity to sit down with individual hospital boards and groups of doctors this has been accepted as sound planning -- that our goal is, as I said a few minutes ago, to plan on having a particular number of active-treatment beds available for active-treatment purposes and to plan to meet extended care and chronic-care needs over and above that. That can’t be done overnight. Obviously, it would be a physical impossibility and it would be a financial impossibility to do it all in one step.

Mr. Cassidy: You gave them six weeks.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have made considerable progress along those lines in many areas of the province, including areas where I have had the opportunity to meet with delegations in recent months. In fact, 1979 will be the year in which we make the most progress in rationalizing the system and seeing to it that the array of facilities and services available is most appropriate.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the response the minister gave to the NDP leader’s first question, in which he made reference to the delegation from Goderich, is he aware that his ministry officials are putting an entirely different interpretation on the commitment he made to that delegation, inasmuch as they are telling the Goderich board now that they will be assessed a $60,000 penalty, that they will not get the increase in chronic-care beds the minister suggested he would permit and that they would not be able to use one or two of those chronic-care beds for active-treatment beds if the case ever arose? Could the minister check with his ministry officials to clear up the confusion the Alexandra Marine Hospital board has at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’d be glad to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Obviously, our first obligation is to try to live within our means.

Ms. Gigantes: Your first obligation is to the health of Ontarians.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Wherever possible, as I said at that meeting several weeks ago, we would hope that where conversions do occur we could live, in 1979-80, within the existing financial allocations. I said that that would create a new base and range of services for future fiscal years and for future budgets for individual hospitals and hospital centres. I will check with the officials who have been following up on that meeting to ensure there is no confusion.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Energy, who has just come back into the House. I’d like to draw to his attention the series of questions which I asked on the Order Paper on April 5 with relation to the safety of Hydro’s nuclear reactors, with relation to the probabilities of accidents and fuel meltdowns and with relation to the risks of radioactive contamination. Can the minister explain why it is taking until May 17 to answer a question relative to the release of studies and documents which were already in Hydro’s possession on April 5 when that question was originally put down on the Order Paper?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The only answer I can give is that it is a complex subject and it is taking some time to put together the material that is required.

Mr. Warner: What to hide and what not to hide.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary Mr. Speaker: How can the minister expect the public to make informed judgements about nuclear energy, a very serious problem now in the province of Ontario, when Hydro has been so reticent about providing the public with both accurate and full information related to nuclear safety; for instance on the number of other incidents that may have taken place with relation to overdoses of radiation at the Bruce or Pickering nuclear plants?

In the spirit of freedom of information, will the Minister of Energy direct Ontario Hydro to make a full revelation of all material related to nuclear plant safety in the province of Ontario, without constantly having the information dragged out of them?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the original question, as members are aware, the staff of Ontario Hydro who are involved in the nuclear generation program have been extremely busy before the select committee, in dealing with reports from the Harrisburg incident and a number of matters, so they have not been able to apply their full time to answering the member’s questions, but I am sure that those answers will be forthcoming as soon as possible. As far as the second question is concerned, the matter the member has mentioned will no doubt be discussed at the select committee this Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister tell the House the facts as they are? When he says that an exposure of five rems per year is permissible and the quarterly permissible level internationally is three rems per quarter, why doesn’t he tell the people that the internal policy of Hydro is two rems per quarter permissible? The Premier tells the House 5.5, and he doesn’t even mention 8.8 rems as being serious, the worst in North America. Why doesn’t the minister tell the people the truth when he knows the internal policy of Hydro is two rems per quarter and we have five rems and eight rems in the picture?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I didn’t tell the House anything about rems. If I understood what the member said, he was talking about two different things. He was talking about an annual exposure and a quarterly exposure and I assume one doesn’t multiply the quarterly exposure by four, but I don’t know. If the member would like me to try to get for him an explanation that we can both understand about permissible radiation and the periods in which it is gathered and how long the radiation lasts in a person, I will attempt to do that.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in saying that Hydro was busy and that the select committee would be looking into this matter, the minister did not answer my specific question so I will put it again: Does the government agree that all documents and studies relative to the safety of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generators should be made available to this Legislature and to the public, and will the minister direct Ontario Hydro to carry out that commitment and make that information available?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a bit of a dilemma as far as Ontario Hydro is concerned about all the information on its plant. There is the question of security of the plant and making available information which would be of assistance to somebody who is attempting to harm that plant or the people in it. I think there are questions of proprietary information, where there is a value to certain information or certain processes which have been developed. However, as I understand the situation, Hydro is making a great deal of information available now. The matter of full disclosure of every piece of paper in the shop is one, as I read the paper, which will be discussed with Hydro by the select committee on Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has the answers to previous questions on the same subject.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I was aware that boilers manufactured by Babcock and Wilcox were no longer approved by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for plants which it is selling outside the country. I may say that I am informed by Hydro the order for boilers for the 600-megawatt Candu nuclear station being supplied to Korea was obtained in 1976 by Foster Wheeler Limited of St. Catharines by competitive bidding against other suppliers.

Concern over the design safety of the Babcock and Wilcox boilers was not the reason for this decision. All other boiler orders for the 600-megawatt units being built in Quebec, New Brunswick and Argentina are being supplied by Babcock and Wilcox, as are the boilers for Pickering B, Bruce B and Darlington A.

[3:00]

Further in that connection, the Leader of the Opposition also asked, if Hydro didn’t know about that, why it didn’t, and why it continued to use the Babcock and Wilcox boilers even to the point of accepting them for Darlington. That was after the discovery in December of certain problems. I may say the order for the Darlington boilers was given on May 31, 1978, some time in advance of the discovery of the problems in the other boilers for the other plants.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to ask a supplementary, on the basis of the question asked in relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s question some time ago, relating to the Babcock and Wilcox boilers. Has the minister now received information that the Atomic Energy Control Board has done a special review of the Babcock and Wilcox capability in connection with these boilers? If he has, could he comment on the report or table it in the House?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I believe I saw a report, and I can’t remember whether it was a report in the press or a report from Ontario Hydro, that the Atomic Energy Control Board was reviewing that. I will find out definitely whether in fact that is true and what information is available. I am not aware of any information that has come as a result of any reviews.

Mr. Nixon: Will he table that information?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If there is some.

Mr. Conway: They are sleeping in the galleries. Old Jimmy Sominex has done it again. He’s put them to sleep.

Mr. Speaker: Maybe if the answers were a little crisper.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Actually, I think I will go into hypnotherapy and make a buck.

Mr. Nixon: Buy that unscrambler you were talking about.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) last week asked whether or not the changes in the design of the Babcock and Wilcox boilers for Pickering had been made by Hydro. I understand the manufacturer is responsible for both the design of the boilers and the manufacturing process.

Finally, there was another question from the honourable member for Grey-Bruce last Friday morning at the end of the question period. There have been operational systems to control and monitor radioactivity effluent from the Bruce nuclear generating station ever since the first reactor unit started up in 1976. Any radioactivity leaving the station via the station stacks is continuously sampled by the stack monitoring systems. These samples are routinely collected and analysed for the presence of radioactivity. Monitors are and have been in operation to measure radioactivity levels in the ventilation exhausts from reactor containment areas.

If excessive levels of radioactivity are detected, these monitoring systems will automatically seal the reactor containment areas and warn the operators in the control room. The station operators would then immediately use the stack samplers to determine the quantity of radioactivity that may have been emitted.

It is planned to have the stack monitoring systems directly indicate the levels of iodine, noble gases and particulate material in the stack effluent, but because of equipment difficulties this is not yet in operation. However, this feature is not essential for safe operation of the station. The existing operating systems provide automatic protective action and adequate warning and information to station operators to assess and control any radioactivity release to the environment.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Energy request a report from Ontario Hydro on every forced or planned outage of electricity at all Hydro’s nuclear generating stations in the last 30 days, specifying what did not work and why it did not work? I request the honourable minister to furnish such a report and table it in the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will request such a report. Again speculating, I would say it may well be there have been outages for which the exact cause has not yet been established. But I will see whether that information is available at the moment.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Today it has been revealed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States discovered 150 cases where critical valves failed, similar to what triggered Three Mile Island. Ontario Hydro’s significant-event report dated 78-1 said there were more than 50 examples where isolating valves have failed to relay -- faults in relays. This ratio shows Ontario Hydro’s experience is about 10 times worse than that of the United States. Will the honourable minister please get a report on that for us?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I say, I will attempt to get the information the honourable member has asked for.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister tell me if ministry crews were monitoring Ministry of Natural Resources dams and water levels on Endikai Lake and Mound Lake in Algoma prior to Thursday and Friday when they were breached? If so, why had not MNR lowered their dams gradually to prevent the sudden onrush of water that forced Hydro to spill water over the Red Rock dam at a rate of 30,000 cubic feet per second resulting in the flooding of Iron Bridge? Ministry officials say the water will rise further today and last indefinitely -- they do not know when it is going to end.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire about that.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: If the minister finds the dam on Mound Lake, for instance, was lowered last year more than it was this year when there were lower water levels, and that it was not lowered last week when water was running over the dam, would he then consider that perhaps MNR has more than 50 per cent responsibility in this matter and should be willing to pay a lot more than 50 per cent for the cleanup as a result of the dams breaching and the flood on the Mississagi River?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I said, I will look into the matter and report to the House.

[Later (3:25):]

Mr. Bolan: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact flooding occurred in the Field area in 1928, 1960, 1970 and now in 1979, does the minister not feel the most sensible thing to do is to relocate to higher grounds those homes which are in the flood plain? Is his ministry prepared to make this recommendation to his cabinet colleagues, particularly to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells)?

Hon. Mr. Auld: One of the things that came up yesterday in the meeting with the West Nipissing Municipal Association was the question of the establishment of a conservation authority and, possibly, flood plain mapping and some relocation. It was discussed, and it was agreed that once the flooding had receded that is something that should be looked at, particularly in those areas where the ground level is very low in comparison with the river’s normal level and also where buildings have been totally destroyed.

However, I just repeat, Mr. Speaker, or highlight what I said in my statement, that there has never been anything quite like this. This is, perhaps, double the effect of the past. I believe the reeve told me that in Field, in the last episode, there were some 15 buildings damaged rather than perhaps 150 this time. The water was considerably higher, as the flow at the Crystal Dam indicates. It is 50 per cent above the highest recorded previous incident. However, certainly some relocation should be considered and that is something we will be looking at along with the municipalities once things have settled back to normal.

Mr. Bolan: Thank you. While the minister is looking at that, would he also look at the question of providing assistance to those businesses, particularly the Field Lumber Company, which has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of this flood and which happens to be the main economic base in Field? In other words, is he making any provisions in his scheme to try to assist these people, and some of the businesses as well, affected by this?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, some of those who will be involved are the Ministry of Industry and Tourism people in terms of both industry and tourism. Some of the outfitters in the area will be severely affected. Their season opens, I guess, in a couple of weeks, and some of those on the lake and at the mouth of the river have lost wharves and ducks and other things.

I would perhaps add that it would be very helpful if the government of Canada were to change its formula because its formula for aid for disasters is based on a per capita amount. There is no aid to Ontario until the damage gets to be in excess of $8.2 million. I just happened to run into one of the member’s federal colleagues yesterday and mentioned this to him.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister look at the areas where feasibility studies have been done and engineering plans have been drawn in flood areas? Will the minister release the purse strings so that these areas can go ahead with the building of flood control projects?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t make any commitment to make any additional expenditures at the present time, other than those budgeted. However, as I indicated, the situation in the Sturgeon River valley is one that is being looked at and in due time we will announce what we are able to do.

[Reverting (3:10:]

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS DISPUTE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall) asked a question about the negotiations between the Provincial Schools Authority and the Federation of Provincial Schools Authority Teachers. I should like to report that both parties were negotiating on Sunday and Monday of this week. The authority has tabled a new monetary offer to the teachers and has offered a dental plan comparable to that agreed upon with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for civil servants. I will share a copy of the salary grid offer with the honourable member if he wishes, but he should remember that every permanent teacher in the schools authority receives an additional $1,465 on top of the grid figure and probationary teachers receive an additional $1,100.

I am informed the major issues that seem to be impeding progress in negotiations at this time are non-monetary. One of the major issues, for example, is that the federation is demanding “that there be no transfer of any school program to a local board of education for the term of this collective agreement.” That has serious implications for movement in the direction of special education which we are developing and will be proposing.

The honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich is also concerned about the staffing of the provincial schools. In the matter of programs and staffing for the adult correctional centres there has already been considerable discussion within the justice committee debating the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services. I am sure my colleague in that ministry has answered or can answer those questions. But as far as the provincial schools operated by the Ministry of Education are concerned, there are some bits of information which I think should be shared with the honourable member.

The number of pupils enrolled in the training school area has decreased from 391 in September 1977 to 383 in January 1979; the number of teachers in that area has decreased from 61.5 to 60. Thus, the pupil-teacher ratio of 6.4 to one has been maintained in spite of the fact that the guideline for staffing as per the 1977-78 agreement is eight to one.

In the developmental centre schools the pupil enrolment has declined from 1,265 to 1,237 and the number of teachers from 252 to 245. The pupil-teacher ratio has been maintained at five to one; if one looks at it on a full-day equivalent basis, the ratio is actually 3.5 to one. That again is below the guideline established for programs for the emotionally disturbed.

In the area of the schools for the blind and deaf, the enrolment has declined from 1,075 in January 1978 to 1,064 in January, 1979. The number of teachers has declined from 264 to 256. The enrolment has remained almost the same. The pupil-teacher ratio in January 1978 was 4.07 to one, and in January 1979 it was 4.16 to one. That again is below the maximum guideline established for the schools for the deaf.

In spite of the fact that the Kawartha Lakes and Pine Ridge schools are proposed to be closed, the Ministry of Education and the Provincial Schools Authority have protected and retained the positions of the 15 teachers on the two staffs to supplement and extend the program in the training schools that are going to remain open.

I would be pleased to share this information with the honourable member if he wishes.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) but, in his absence and that of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), could I be advised who the acting House leader is so that I could at least place the question?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

Mr. Nixon: He hasn’t got enough to do.

Mr. Breithaupt: As the minister, or certainly his seatmate, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), is aware, the price of milk is to rise by at least two cents a quart today by a decision following that of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to grant two cents more to dairy farmers.

Will the minister investigate the alleged price increases on April 30 -- yesterday -- by the Loblaws store at Queensway and Royal York Road and apparently at other Loblaws and Dominion stores in Ontario? Further, will he be able to advise us what are the increases expected in the price of milk beyond the two cents that is going to the farmers and with which none of us quarrels?

Will the minister demand an explanation of this apparent piracy from Loblaws and Dominion executives and inform the House what redress will be demanded from those who have done this price gouging, if such is the ease?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as a two-quart-a-day milk consumer myself, I will be delighted to pass that inquiry along to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister also inquire as to why milk is going up by four cents a quart in the Sudbury area as opposed to two cents in other parts of the province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am sure the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will inquire into both parts of that increase.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister, while he is doing that also investigate A and P in London, which had a premature price increase yesterday or the day before?

CHRYSLER LAYOFFS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Manpower. Does the minister remember the assurances given to the House by the former Minister of Labour on May 2, 1978, that Ontario would get its fair share of small-car production from Chrysler Canada? Does the minister remember warnings from this side of the House that Chrysler Canada, by removing its six cylinder-engine production last year from Windsor to Detroit, would result in job loss? Does he also remember that his government and the federal government gave us assurances that job losses would not occur because the Ontario government had received assurances from Chrysler Canada?

Now that it has become obvious that Chrysler’s assurances to the government were misleading or lies, what is the minister prepared to do to stop the 550 layoffs announced by Chrysler last week in order to ensure that we get our fair share of small- car production and that these layoffs do not take place in Windsor?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for endowing me with a title which, as he knows, I don’t yet have. However, in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), I am pleased to tell the member I did read the questions asked in the House in my absence. I have asked members of my staff to review the commitments to which the member refers. I will be glad to report to him once I have reviewed that information.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that fully one third of those 550 jobs being lost are in the machining area and, therefore in the auto parts portion of the auto industry, where there is already a very serious imbalance in trade under the auto pact?

Is he also aware that of the 1,900 engines which have been produced up to now in that engine plant, 1,400 of the engine blocks were produced in Windsor -- the total capacity for production in Windsor -- with 500 having to be imported from Detroit? In this cutback to 1,400 engines produced, it is still planned to import blocks from Detroit, even though the Windsor plant has the full capacity to produce them. Will he ensure that those 500 engine blocks are still built in Windsor and not imported?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will review the portion of those questions that relates to the Ministry of Labour and will refer the other portion to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that his ministry had been giving overtime permits to Chrysler right along, even knowing that they were going to shut down --

Mr. B. Newman: -- and run into difficult days, as far as the heavy 360-cubic-inch engine is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have immediate, first-hand knowledge of the overtime permits the member refers to. If he wishes to have specific information about the number of overtime permits, I’ll be pleased to give it to him. As he well knows, some overtime permits are allowed. If he wishes, I would be glad to discuss them with him.

Mr. Conway: Is it true you’re about to become Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No. I’m about to become -- never mind.

CHEST DISEASE CASES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, recently the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) asked several questions regarding the relationship between working in northern Ontario mines and lung cancer.

There is currently no way in which the board can identify all lung cancer claims submitted from hardrock miners because, up to the present time, lung cancer among miners in general has not been considered an industrial disease. Thus, there has been no occasion to specifically note such claims.

However, using the 30,000 miners being studied by the occupational health and safety branch -- as I mentioned in the House on April 3 -- I believe it will be possible to identify miners who have died of lung cancer since 1955. If any such cases are discovered, they will be documented and held for future review, should the relationship between lung cancer and hardrock mining be established and accepted by the board.

As well, I should inform the member that the board currently has no method of identifying claims that may have been denied in the past for chronic bronchitis, bronchial problems or asthmatic problems. Under the new computer systems development program for recording medical statistics, however, it will be possible to retrieve rejected claims for any injury or disease.

Finally, in response to the member’s inquiry about the activities of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission of Quebec regarding the recognition of the relationship between diesel fuels and bronchial problems, the Workmen’s Compensation Board is not aware of any guidelines developed by the Quebec commission to accept chronic bronchitis as an industrial disease related to diesel fumes. However, the board has written the Quebec commission requesting any information it might have on the subject.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) raised a supplementary question regarding conflicting advice being given to miners, following chest X-rays, about the advisability of continuing to work underground. Currently, a procedure has been worked out by which Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labour personnel bring information pertaining to worker X-rays to the attention of the board’s chest disease consultant. In conjunction with the chest advisory committee of the board, a final determination as to whether or not the workers should be removed from risk is made, based on X-ray findings and pulmonary function findings. If the decision is reached that the worker should be removed from risk, he then becomes eligible for the board’s special rehabilitation assistance program.

I would think the member knows of the details of this program, but if not, I would be pleased to provide him with that information.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) referred in an earlier supplementary to a study of chronic obstructive lung disease in nickel smelter workers. I have been advised the board has examined existing studies on this question and believes there is not, as yet conclusive evidence of the relationship between chronic obstructive lung disease and work in nickel smelters. However, the board is considering carrying out a major study on the matter, and I expect this will be a topic of discussion at the next of my quarterly meetings with the board.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Is the minister aware there are workers who, after working for years in the mines, have dust effects which show on their lungs but are not categorized as silicotic? When these workers apply for a job at any mine in Ontario they are refused employment because of the dust effects in their lungs, and the compensation board is refusing to provide any vocational rehabilitation to these workers. Does the minister think that’s fair? If he doesn’t think it’s fair, would he direct the board to change the policy?

Mr. McClellan: The industry recognizes the disease and the board doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There are a great variety of conditions encompassed in the term “pneumoconiosis,” which is what the member is referring to, not all of which are symptomatic. If a worker is being refused employment on the basis of an asymptomatic pneumoconiosis then that is a problem I’m concerned about. If, on the other hand, the member is telling me there are workers with symptoms the board is not willing to review, I would be glad to discuss the problem with him or inquire into it with the board if he gives me specific areas he is talking about.

Mr. Warner: The minister should straighten out that board.

WELLAND HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: A question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware that there is agreement among the union workers, the nurses and the administrative staff at the Welland County General Hospital that the service there is continuing to deteriorate? Is he aware that the deterioration includes what he may think are such unimportant things as the non-provision of Kleenex, which they used to provide and which is supplied free in hotels, and the reduction in the frequency of providing juice to the patients in the hospital, a reduction below a 20-year level, and more important things?

Because there is a shortage of staff, there is an insufficient changing of sheets on the beds to the point where a man on his deathbed lay in his own stool for lengthy periods of time. That can be substantiated by the nurse. I will give the minister the name of the nurse on the floor. There is a backlog in the admitting department which at times results in injured persons not getting the immediate service they need. I will send the minister a copy of a report which has been given to me.

Will the minister, therefore, reconsider the miserly one and a half per cent increase he has given to that hospital this year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have had no direct indication from that hospital that it is short-staffed. I may say that we are awaiting the receipt of budgets from all of the hospitals around the end of May to indicate what they are doing to live within their budgetary allocations. The standard and the quality of health care is something which is uppermost in our minds as we evaluate each of these submissions.

Ms. Gigantes: Your budget priorities are uppermost in your mind.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have acknowledged repeatedly that this is a difficult time for everyone responsible for budgets, whether at the ministry level or at the individual hospital level. I think we have shown, that where problems develop we will, within the means available to us, do everything possible to assist.

What I will do is refer this unsigned document to the area team, which is the first point of contact with hospitals -- the daily contact if they are having any problems -- to see if there is something here that needs remedy. As I said, I am under no illusions at all but that it is a difficult time for all of us and puts everybody who is a manager to the test of his management skills.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, in view of the statement of the minister that he is not aware of this deterioration, and that nobody has contacted him on it, may I give him in a few moments the names of 5,092 people who have signed a petition who are aware of that deterioration? May I ask him if he would go to that hospital and meet with the union staff and the nursing staff to find out for himself the opinion of those who are actually delivering the service on whether there is a real deterioration?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member may not know that I am in hospitals all the time. I travel a great deal, as much as time permits, so that I can see for myself the facilities in the various parts of the province.

I think the member would have to acknowledge the people responsible for that hospital are the board, his fellow citizens in that community and the administration. The door will always be open to deal with the people responsible for the hospital and --

Mr. Swart: You mean you won’t meet with the people who are delivering the service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- to deal with any problems which are brought to our attention. I think it would be highly irresponsible to try to leave the impression with anybody that we can have it both ways, that we can live within our means in this province and --

Mr. McClellan: That’s your priority, Dennis. That’s your priority.

Mr. Warner: Not health care.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I think the answer is full enough.

PETITION

WELLAND HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: I have a petition to the Speaker. Members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario: We the undersigned residents of the Welland area hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to take whatever action is necessary to reverse the decision of the Ministry of Health whereby limited funding for the Welland County General Hospital necessitates the closing of 30 hospital beds and the loss of a substantial number of jobs.

Specifically we petition that the funds be increased this year by at least the same four and a half per cent applicable to the other hospitals in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the honourable member knows, as do all honourable members, that any petition that begs for the expenditure of funds is out of order. So you can just take it back.

MOTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the select committee on Hydro affairs be allowed to sit concurrent with the House on May 3 and May 4.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, perhaps I should table the answers to questions 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 39, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 57, 66, 68, 72, 75, 81, 83, 85, 88, 101, 128, 137, 139 and 140 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, perhaps the minister could indicate whether or not he has taken the bills in the order of his announcement last Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The difficulty is the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) isn’t here, so therefore -- oh, is the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) going to take the bill? I am sorry, I didn’t realize the parliamentary assistant was going to take that bill. Thank you.

SHERIDAN PARK CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grossman, moved second reading of Bill 42, An Act to repeal the Sheridan Park Corporation Act.

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a comment on the bill. As indicated in the explanatory note, the repealed act established the Sheridan Park Corporation to acquire, service and sell land to establish a centralized research complex, et cetera. Perhaps I might mention, for the information of the honourable members, that the Ontario Development Corporation took over ownership of Sheridan Park in 1970, and at that time there were 105 of the 300 acres unsold. There have been no book entries on the books of the Sheridan Park since 1970 and the provincial auditor has requested its repeal several times. As a matter of interest only three and a half acres are left unsold at the research park at this time.

Mr. Hall: I think this is just a little matter of clean-up work and I guess it’s long overdue. I’m advised that the auditor has requested this act to be repealed several times and there hasn’t even been a book entry since 1970. I wonder how many other such acts need to be passed to tidy up the work? At any rate, whether it’s long overdue or not, there will be no objection from us.

Mr. Warner: Apparently, the legislation is needed in order to dissolve something which isn’t functioning. I guess the only thing you could add is we need a similar bill in order to dissolve the government across the way.

Mr. Nixon: I would just make one comment on the bill which will dissolve Sheridan Park as a corporation. I can remember the original bill instituting it and have watched with a great deal of interest as the facilities were established and the property serviced and sold under the jurisdiction of the former corporation to a number of important research establishments, not the least of which is Atomic Energy of Canada. I know that in their facility they do a lot of their program and project designs, and probably they are as advanced as any other facility in North America in this connection. I just wanted to state briefly, something that I said at that time.

I have felt, with the provincial involvement in that property, and with the number of top flight research capabilities centred there, that we, as a Legislature, ought to encourage the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) to work out some sort of high technology program whereby our senior engineers and technologists could get some kind of advanced degree or certificate of recognition for working on a basis of co-operation with the research capabilities out there. We are very proud, for example, of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, and I have felt that it might even be a graduate school for Ryerson along the lines of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Because of the really remarkable level of advanced technological achievement there, we could make available, to restricted numbers of students, a co-operative program which could be second to none in the world with the kind of initiative the Ministry of Education might have taken. Even under the new jurisdiction there is still time and I hope that the parliamentary assistant would agree with me that the matter is worth at least some investigation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member wishing to participate in this debate?

Mr. G. E. Smith: Further to the comments of the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, certainly his suggestion has some merit and I will take the opportunity of drawing it to the attention of not only the Minister of Industry and Tourism, but more particularly to the Minister of Education and ask her to read his comments in Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading, also agreed to on motion.

NIAGARA MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved second reading of Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Mr. Ashe: Just very briefly: The members are well aware of the background of this legislation. It has been approximately three and a half years since the restructuring process started. It culminated last fall with Bill 180 and this Bill 29 is successor legislation. Basically it establishes 10 new municipal hydro-electric commissions in the regional municipality of Niagara. Other than the changes previously identified on first reading, the bill is substantially the same as its predecessor, Bill 180.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about this bill as a matter of principle. I may be the only member in this House who feels this way, however I represent four of the smaller boroughs in the Niagara region and I want to take a little time to set out some of the problems they face.

Niagara was blessed with regional government in 1970 -- “blessed” should be followed by a question marked obviously -- and at that time they didn’t know how to cope with questions of hydro commissions. They put that aside and among other things froze the membership to those persons who had last been elected. In the meantime, regional government in all its glory proceeded and in 1979 we have a regional water system, a regional sewer system, a regional police system and goodness knows what other great regional groupings.

However, to call this a hydro restructuring is to me laughable. It’s a non-restructuring.

Essentially the bill establishes 10 commissions where 12 had existed before.

The mover of this bill has said it’s a result of three and a half years’ work of the restructuring committee. The committee did work very hard over two or three years to come up with its answers. It had certain guidelines, as I understand it, laid down as a result of the Hogg commission. Among other things, it said any new scheme of restructuring would have to produce commissions which would be viable. Viable to me in this sense means economically viable -- able to live and stand on their own feet.

It was under this approach the various members of the restructuring committee worked -- under the chairmanship of Mr. Kaupp of St. Catharines I believe. Finally, after considering alternatives and holding public meetings, they came up with a majority report recommending two commissions in Niagara, essentially along the lines of the old counties, Lincoln county and Welland county. That report was communicated to the provincial steering committee, I believe late last spring or early summer.

[3:45]

The provincial steering committee considered their report and altered it by recommending one Niagara regional hydro commission. One would think that would end the matter. However, for many reasons of which I am not aware, the ministry in late September, through the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), announced legislation would come forth last fall for a concept completely different than what the restructuring committee had recommended. It was for what is called lower tier, the 10 commissions suggested in this bill. Not only that, but I believe some of the small commissions involved were advised they had something like three or four weeks to decide whether or not they would, as in the case of Grimsby, stay with the small commission or set up a whole new structure which would encompass the whole municipal boundary and take in what used to be the township of North Grimsby.

For areas like west Lincoln, which had a small commission in the village of Smithville, there was no need to consider whether they would take in the vast area of west Lincoln; it was just an absolute impossibility. Similarly, for the town of Lincoln, which consists of several small municipalities several miles apart with only one commission in the town of Beamsville, again there was no choice; they would have to stay small. The same applies to the town of Pelham. There was great consternation at the different councils because of this, and quite understandably so.

The effect of the lower tier situation to them means that for now and in the foreseeable future the small communities will be paying considerably more for their hydro than the people living in the cities of Niagara Falls and St. Catharines and the Welland-Thorold area. Inasmuch as these small communities have had other restraints placed upon them and really cannot hope to grow much in the future, it presents a big problem. The big will tend to get bigger and the smaller ones will certainly stay small. Under this bill, the small will pay more for hydro, in my view, now and forever.

When I say they have restraints put upon them, the very nature of regional government, among other things, established regional funding for sewers and water. The small community can’t act on its own accord now to initiate developments without having the funding come through the region, which in turn of course is supported by funds from the Ministry of the Environment.

Overriding this, and in addition, in the Niagara region we have a planning device which is relatively new to Ontario called urban area boundaries. Again, it seems Niagara is the area where we have to experiment in types of government and in planning decisions.

With the restraints the small communities can’t do anything about they obviously won’t be able to grow; and they will be facing considerably higher hydro costs than people in the city.

I live outside the Grimsby commission and I buy power from Ontario Hydro on the more preferred of two rural rates. My average bill for the past three months of January, February and March was $68 a month, and that is a substantial cost indeed. It can be argued that we have regional water rates, but the water cost to any home owner is nothing like the hydro cost. We have a government that, in my mind at least, has walked away from its responsibilities having told us regional government was in place. In the final crunch, when it came down to a matter of hydro, they counted the votes and backed away from their principles as to the merits of regional government and the concept of cost-sharing over a broad area.

We are hurt of course in the small communities by a lack of ability to attract industry in the future. It is unfortunate because while the cost differential hurts the small community, had they proceeded with a two-commission setup or even a regional setup, it would not have hurt the larger areas that much at all. Ontario Hydro often spills more than this difference.

Most of the small commissions will have to buy all their services, maintenance crews, pole-erecting systems and what have you from Ontario Hydro, which will have to remain a presence in Niagara forever, because these communities will never get to be big enough to be self-sufficient.

One small example: If they were to establish their own yard, they would immediately run up against problems in such things as inventory of parts. There would always be a need for some variety of parts, but a small commission could never justify the inventory costs; whereas a regional utility, on any economy of scale, could very easily afford to supply transformers or major substation components.

Another strength that would have been offered by a larger system is when storms strike one part or another of the peninsula. Small communities on their own will not have the forces and will have to depend on Ontario Hydro, whereas if they had been part of a broad commission they could have worked with one another.

While I have never been a proponent of regionalism, now that it has been in existence for 10 years, to turn our backs on it and walk away from it is hard for me to understand. It was interesting because the information provided to my councils is that the ministry never received the majority report of the local study team, yet it certainly did receive the minority report. Which is a rather strange admission for the ministry to make, as it did last fall after the bill was worded and put into action. Indeed, the provincial steering committee has been abolished by this time and does not even exist anymore. The haste last fall, after years of dilly-dallying around, is still a question mark in the minds of some people. I can tell you, though, Mr. Speaker, that there are still people in the ministry, and very highly placed in the ministry, who do feel a mistake is being made here and there should be two regional commissions or one commission.

For a small community such as Grimsby I have numerical costs. The present debt of the commission is small, taking the old town boundaries as the limits. Based on the 1975 figures, there is a capital debt per customer of $12.78. Had they been forced to go to the entire limits of their boundaries, they would have picked up possibly 3,000 customers; but they also would have picked up $1.1 million in capital debt, which would have been something in the area of $200 per customer.

Grimsby is the closest to being viable. The other communities, as I say, are a long way off. It was for that reason we first approached the minister last fall, because in Bill 180 Grimsby was actually included as one that was able to stand on its own two feet. Contrary to what the restructuring committee report had suggested, not heading towards lower tier, it was quite a shock to them to find that within three weeks they were supposed to decide and respond as to whether they should indeed be a much larger operation and assume a debt of $1.1 million. They quite wisely wanted to hold off and join that smaller group of municipalities which at least have a chance to review the matter in three years’ time.

I want to talk a little bit about the concept of reviewing the potential of including the whole of the municipal boundary and all the users. The act says that a study is to be made every three years. I can tell members that some of these communities will be studying it for a long, long time; and it won’t make sense economically.

At the same time, according to advice given in writing by Ontario Hydro staff in the Hamilton area, the municipalities will have to pay for these studies made every three years. This represents a further concern to some of our municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, to reinforce that statement, I would like to read you a resolution adopted by the council of the town of Pelham at a regular meeting on January 29, 1979:

“Whereas, under Bill 180” -- which was the previous number -- “council of local municipalities will be required to study the feasibility of whether the local commission should be enlarged to handle the total electrical distribution system in the town, including those portions of the municipality handled by Ontario Hydro; and whereas such a study must be done once every three years; and whereas the act gives very little information respecting the type of study, the depth of study or who shall assume the cost of such study;

“Now, therefore, the council of the corporation of the town of Pelham respectfully requests the province of Ontario to set out in the legislation the type and depth of studies that must be carried out by a local municipality to satisfy the particular provisions of the act respecting the study; to set out clearly in the act that the cost of such studies will be assumed and paid for by the province of Ontario or its respective agency, Ontario Hydro; or, alternatively, will provide grants equal to the cost of undertaking such a study; and to modify Bill 180 when it is reintroduced to the Legislature in the spring to reflect the request contained herein.”

I’m afraid that hasn’t been recognized in the text of the bill. But I submit that when the bill goes to committee possibly there would be an opportunity for consideration of what is fair treatment of these municipalities in this regard.

Regrettably, the bill restructuring missed an opportunity to address other problems in the community. I am sure the House can easily visualize a street with one power line serving it; with people on one side of the street paying a low energy rate by being in the commission area; yet their neighbours 75 feet away pay a considerably higher rate because, not being in the commission area, they have to buy from Ontario Hydro.

It is unfortunate that the powers that be didn’t give the local commissions an opportunity to realign their boundaries with a sense of fairness and at least go back line. The concept of using the centre of a built-up street as a dividing line is not very smart, once you get out into the small towns. It sets up awkward situations. I have heard complaints from several council members about that very problem.

It wouldn't have hurt to have provided a little flexibility. I suspect the reason they didn’t want that done was that they wanted to capture as many high-rate customers for the revenue that would go to Ontario Hydro to sustain what they designated as a rural area. But it gets pretty silly in certain parts of a commission boundary.

Another aspect of the bill I’d like to bring to the government’s attention in committee has to do with recognition of who should sit on future commissions. While the bill goes on for several pages on different aspects of housekeeping, there is one thing, in this regard, that I want to express to you, Mr. Speaker.

[4:00]

I said earlier that the policy of the government when regional government came into being was to freeze the elected membership in the last election, prior to the formation of regional government. Ten years have gone by, and while some of those elected members in some communities may still be active and able to make a contribution and be involved in the future work of studying the capability of taking a boundary to the whole municipal limit, in other areas that’s just not the case. Time takes its toll.

I respectfully suggest that the bill could stand being modified so local councils in their wisdom would decide who would be appointed to the commission in the interim period up until November 1980, the first start-up period. Surely, a local council with the interests of its citizens at heart would be quick to reappoint those members from previous commissions who still were able to make a contribution. But to sentence some people, who may very well not even wish to be commissioners, with that responsibility, when 10 years have gone by and their health may be different, to me is a slap in the face to local governments.

As I have said, it’s a tough enough situation for the small municipalities I represent, without also having the great, long arm of the province reaching out to tell them how to cross their t’s and dot their i’s on matters such as who in the community could best serve the community by appointment until November 1980. I could dwell at length on this matter. I have the feeling -- and it’s unfortunate -- that after 10 years we still have a parochial problem in a large regional area. It’s evident in this bill and it’s evident in some of the behind-the-scenes pressures that must have been put on the government.

Undoubtedly, the figures are correct that 80 per cent of the voters live in cities which have and will have viable hydro-electric power commissions. Only 20 per cent live outside that area and will have to pay higher costs.

I think another factor has crept in. I can only surmise but I could easily visualize that where there are 10 power commissions that means there are at least 10 general managers, whereas if there is only one commission, there will be certainly fewer opportunities for advancement in the bureaucratic aspects of the commissions.

As a result of a lot of work by a lot of people, after a long delay, we have a situation where we have ended up by really going for status quo. It should be an example to the government and to other areas contemplating regional governments and contemplating restructuring of hydro that a lot of good work can often go down the drain and the majority report can apparently just be rejected out of hand. I think that’s an unfortunate set of circumstances.

My concern is purely and simply that, despite the best intentions of the study team, in terms of dollars and cents it would not have hurt the cities a great deal to have accepted a regional concept in the bill. This bill does the reverse. It hurts a smaller number of people but it hurts them a good deal more in terms of dollars and cents. This is only with our analysis of what hydro costs us today. We don’t know five, 10, 15 years down the road just how much hydro will cost. If that differential spreads as hydro costs increase, it will be a substantial amount of money for people living in rural areas.

That is the extent of my comments at this time, Mr. Speaker. There may be some opportunity for minor improvement in committee. I do wish to acknowledge that the minister was willing to modify the circumstances with regard to the town of Grimsby at our request. That is appreciated.

I want to reiterate that the matter of local autonomy in the selection of commission members seems to me something that should be considered. The question of the funding of studies and the nature of the studies that will be required by these municipalities is I think another important matter to be considered.

I’m looking at the hydro bill of the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). I am just delighted to see that he’s paying less than I am at any rate, but he is still paying at the rate of $37 a month as a general class of service and actually by the time he has finished he is well up over $40 a month which, as you can calculate, Mr. Speaker, would run an average home somewhere between $450 and $500 per year. That’s a substantial amount of money. I feel that the small municipalities -- Pelham, West Lincoln, Grimsby and Lincoln -- have been unfairly treated by this bill.

Mr. Swart: As you might expect, Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments on this bill -- a bill which affects the municipalities which I represent in this Legislature and all of the Niagara region.

I want to say that I’m happy to have this bill before us in this Legislature at long, long last. I want to tell you that during the 10 years since the hydro commissions were frozen in the Niagara Peninsula -- and they of course were frozen as to their then boundaries and as to their personnel -- the frustration among the councils and the hydro commissions and the public had reached a point where it was almost ready to explode, and did in some instances.

When the regional municipality of Niagara was formed in 1970 -- actually the bill was passed in 1969 -- and amalgamation of some 26 municipalities into 12 new ones took place, those in the urban-rural areas, those parts of the rural municipalities which had spilled over largely from the towns and the cities next door, expected that one of the benefits they would get would be lower hydro rates, because they were taken into the commission and then when the bill was passed of course, they were frozen out of that. Over this period of 10 years many of them have paid -- as pointed out by the member for Lincoln -- rates which were far in excess of those paid by their neighbours across the street in the other side of town where they had a hydro commission of their own.

In my own municipality, the city of Thorold, investigation over the years showed that this difference ran in the neighbourhood of something like 33 per cent additional to the urban-rural dwellers -- I believe that’s the terminology used. They have two classifications under rural hydro; one is urban-rural, R-1, and the other is R-2, which is rural. It was about 48 per cent difference in the rural section of the municipality. That varies, of course, as rural hydro rates may not have increased at the same time as the urban rates, or vice-versa. But in Thorold even at the present time there is a difference of 16 per cent.

Incidentally, where I live -- I am one of those in the urban-rural areas -- the rate is 16 per cent higher than just across the street where the electricity is provided by the Thorold Public Utilities Commission. The people who live in the rural part of Thorold pay something like 26 per cent more.

The city of Welland, even at this time, has rates very substantially below those of the rural hydro. An average residential consumer in the city of Welland at the present time pays a two-months’ bill of $39.70, but those people who are within the city but still connected to the rural system are paying $52.97 -- 34 per cent higher. Those who happen to live in the agricultural-rural part of the city of Welland pay $57.20 or some 44 per cent higher.

These differentials have existed over these 10 years. As you can guess, they have caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among those urban-rural or rural residents who annexed to the cities or towns in the Niagara region with the belief -- stated over and over again by the government when they were promoting regional government in that area -- they would have lower hydro rates to compensate for the increase in taxes.

This reached such a point of frustration in the regional council of Niagara while I was there that on November 7, 1974, I moved a motion which said: “Whereas it is now almost five years since the Ontario government froze the boundaries of the municipal hydro-electric commission within the municipalities in the Niagara region and eliminated the right of citizens to elect their commissioners; and whereas this has perpetuated inequities now amounting in some instances to a 50 per cent rate differential between citizens in the same municipality, this council deplores the stalling of the Ontario government in lifting the freeze on existing commissions or providing some reasonable alternative.”

The regional chairman was authorized to appoint a committee to come to visit the Minister of Energy here at Queen’s Park. They came and were told it was in the works and the change would be made rather shortly. Whether or not it was going to be to a regional system, they were told the restructuring would take place and the freeze would be lifted.

It is now 1979, 10 years later, and I think today or next week, depending when we get it through committee and have third reading, that change will be taking place and the freeze will be lifted.

My first speech in this House when I was elected here in 1975 was on this subject: the injustices of hydro rates in the two municipalities which I represented -- the tremendous contrast between those who had been annexed to the city of Welland and annexed to the city of Thorold, but were still served by rural hydro.

The member for Lincoln gave a bit of the history of what has taken place during those 10 years and I am not going to repeat it here at any great length. But I want to point out that in those 10 years we have almost come the complete cycle; we’re almost back to where we were 10 years ago. In fact, what is now taking place could have been done within one year from the time the act creating the regional municipality of Niagara was passed in this Legislature. It sure has been a 10-year fiasco, and that is not an overstatement of the situation.

The first thing that was done was to appoint Task Force Hydro, which was to look at all Ontario. The task force reported back on December 14, 1972. It said municipal utilities would be rationalized into upper-tier regional utilities where and as new municipal government is implemented.

[4:15]

That was the recommendation of the report at that time. However, that didn’t meet with unanimous approval across this province and further government committees were appointed. One was the Hogg committee report. It confirmed in 1974 that there should be upper-tier hydro in the regional governments in this province. But then, on February 11, 1975, the Minister of Energy changed that policy and said, “The policy of this government is that it may be either upper tier or lower tier but it must encompass all of any municipality. There may be only one authority providing hydro within that municipality.”

Then on July 8, 1977, incidentally, when the hydro for Peel region was being restructured -- I suppose it was purely coincidental that it was in the riding of the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- there was another statement by the Minister of Energy which said that the principle of the Hogg committee report was confirmed except for any municipality which had an existing hydro commission, which would be permitted to continue. So, we went around almost the complete cycle.

During the last three or four years, again as was pointed out by the member for Lincoln, there has been a local study team determining the structure for the Niagara Peninsula which was to report to the steering committee and to Ontario Hydro, and make reports back to the local municipalities. It was composed of very knowledgeable people. There was real controversy and understandably so; I’m not blaming people on either side. There was a split almost down the middle between those who wanted a regional system and those who wanted the system to be attached to the local municipalities.

The majority of the study team and municipalities wanted the upper-tier system, but the municipalities with the major populations wanted the lower-tier system. When the votes came in, in all instances they were very, very close and there was a majority report. It is my understanding that the majority report was sent to the government. In fact, the Minister of Energy told me they had it, and there was, also, a minority report which represented a majority of the population. When it went to the steering committee of Hydro, the recommendation was for the upper tier, but when it got to the government, it was decided that it would be at the lower tier.

The issue between these two groups was pretty clear -- the reasons for voting the way they did. The large municipalities, which were only taking in a small amount of rural area proportional to their population, such as the cities of St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, and Welland, and which could buy out the rural system at a minimal cost compared to their total capital investment in their own system, supported the local system. The semi rural and the rural municipalities, where there was a large capital cost compared to the population, opposed it. The simple facts are, the big cities -- big by our standards in Niagara -- would have been subsidizing the rural area and they divided largely along those lines. I think the member for Brock would agree with that statement.

There was, however, one other factor. And that factor was there were many people who had a distaste for regional government. They didn’t want to see anything more at the regional level. Even some of those in the study group and some of those people in municipalities where it was shown they would have a substantial financial saving through their own municipality, voted in favour of the lower tier because of their dislike for regional government and their fear of what might happen if it went to the regional level.

I just want to say here that although I tried during this period of time to read all the reports and absorb what was said and keep an open mind, I think I have to say I basically agree with the government in its decision to place the provision of hydro at the local government level.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have you in the chair.

I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, I think the government should go one step further.

The Hogg committee report recommendations were broken down. The report said there should only be one hydro authority in any municipality. The government said that too but, as I have already mentioned, when it came to the restructuring in Peel, they broke that down. They said, “There is the community of Bolton which should have its own hydro system. The surrounding municipality” -- and I have forgotten the name of that surrounding municipality; Caledon, I believe that’s right -- “is so large, mostly rural, we can’t afford to put it all in one. We will allow rural hydro in one part of the municipality and a commission in the other part of the municipality.”

I am not too sure I disagree with that, but what I do disagree with in this bill is re-establishing the boundaries of those commissions on the same boundaries they had 10 years ago. I think it’s perhaps almost the worst of all worlds. Many of the municipalities, such as Pelham, have an option. Thorold might yet get into this category. I think they are having a meeting tonight and if we don’t pass this bill, they may be asking for some change. I am not sure of that, but whether it’s Pelham or Niagara-on-the-Lake, or Lincoln, or Grimsby, the option they have is either to extend the commission boundaries to the limits of the municipality or to stay with what they have at the present time.

If they stay with what they have all of the old injustices still remain. There is the urban core under a commission. Immediately adjacent to it will be rural hydro and the rates there will be 25 or 35 per cent higher. There will be no planning from that core to supply those people outside. It will all be under rural hydro. There will be two separate systems in the same municipality. All of the old injustices are still there and if anything, they are magnified because of the urban growth that has taken place around those cores since 1970, in 10 years.

The other alternative is they must go out to the boundaries, to the limits of their municipalities. It is recognized they can’t afford that at all.

We have the report here of the technical study committee, Electrical Utility Restructuring in the Regional Municipality of Niagara, the resource group report, which was the technical report. It shows that, for instance, if they make one commission for all of Grimsby, in South Grimsby the increase in the urban area will be 42.9 per cent. The increase in the area served by rural hydro will be 18 per cent higher than rural hydro if they take the whole municipality in. If you look at Fonthill, the figures are somewhat similar. In Pelham, there will be a 42 per cent increase for those within the urban area and 18 per cent for those who are situated in the rural hydro area that would go into a Pelham commission. The council in Pelham cannot possibly institute a commission for the whole municipality, and yet the alternative is that they must go back to the boundaries of their old commission.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But any piecemeal inclusion of the rural area still leaves two systems.

Mr. Swart: I suggest that if we extend the present boundaries of the commission, in consultation with the municipalities, to take in the immediate compact urban area -- let the municipalities take a look at it and include that -- but now we are passing a new bill --

Hon. Mr. Welch: But you still leave rural subscribers within the municipalities.

Mr. Swart: Of course it will still leave rural subscribers, but they are going to be better off than if the whole municipality were taken in, aren’t they? Many of those, from the figures I gave, are going to be better off -- and the member for Brock knows these figures probably better than I do --

Hon. Mr. Welch: But I speak to the member’s argument about the breaking up of the recommendation and having two systems. We’re still going to have two systems by his logic or by his argument.

Mr. Swart: I am saying that if we have come back to two systems -- and the government has come back to two systems; there is no question about it -- then let us make those systems realistic. Let’s draw reasonable boundaries; that is what I am saying. Let’s not re-establish the old boundaries. I say to the member for Brock and to the members of this House, and particularly the members from the Niagara area -- it perhaps won’t affect Niagara Falls too much, or St. Catharines, but it will sure affect Niagara and Pelham -- that we are going to have a very dissatisfied public there.

After this bill goes through, ail the people who live in that urban area around the old village of Fonthill -- the Deputy Premier is familiar with that area -- are going to be exceedingly unhappy, and rightly so. After 10 years of examining the situation, they are going to be right back where they were.

We will be submitting an amendment on this -- and I hope the government will take a good look at it -- to permit municipalities to take a look at new boundaries before October 1. I am hoping that the government and the members on the right-hand side, as a compromise, if you will, will look favourably on this amendment which we are going to be putting forward.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What about the people on the other side of your line?

Mr. Swart: The people on the other side of the line I am talking about are going to be better off than they would be if they are put in a commission for the whole municipality. The member for Brook must admit that that is the case, by the figures which are put out in this document.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’m not so sure I would admit that.

Mr. Swart: I would like to talk to him privately afterwards if I may, to show him these figures; he may not admit it publicly, but he knows they are correct.

We can move to those new boundaries, as decided in consultation with the municipalities, and if they want to be firm from then on, very well, be firm. Either say, “That is as far as you go,” or, “Go all the way.” That may be reasonable. I suggest this is a compromise.

[4:30]

Let me just put forward another argument relative to this. As the member for Brock knows, he is representing the government here. If I address him a great deal I hope he will realize it is because I know that whatever he decides will filter through the rest of the cabinet and we will get agreement.

In all of these municipalities now in the Niagara region, with the exception of Wainfleet, they have established urban service areas -- true for St. Catharines, true for Thorold. These go out some distance from the urban centre to allow for development in the future. Unless the government does what this party is suggesting, it is going to have all kinds of people who are within an urban service area for all other purposes -- paying for water, sewer, street lights, all of the urban services -- yet who are still going to be paying a rural hydro rate. Therefore, I think it makes eminent sense to try to somehow or other have the hydro service boundaries conform -- perhaps they cannot be exact -- with the urban service boundaries. I am hoping that when the amendment comes forward both the government and the members to the right will give favourable consideration to this amendment.

I am going to speak briefly on one or two other issues. We do not propose any amendment to this bill to deal with the issue of whether hydro commissions should be members of council, or whether in fact there should be hydro commissions. Among municipalities there is a general feeling which I share, that the ad hoc groups and the quasi-municipal groups should be merged into the council for efficient operation. I think perhaps the authority for hydro should ultimately be vested with the councils as well as the authority for water and sewer and all of the other services.

I must say that when regional governments were formed, and even where they were not formed, there have been some positive steps taken by the government to eliminate some of these bodies which had proliferated to the point where municipalities had very little authority left. I commend them for it. But I say that at some time they should also be taking a good look at hydro commissions and whether they should become part of council’s responsibility.

The other comment I want to make pertains to the purchase of the rural plant where municipalities are having to take it in. Looking at the bill -- and this was the situation with regard to the other restructuring acts which were passed by this government -- the municipalities have to pay a very substantial amount for the rural plant they bring into their commission’s system. I suggest the amounts being charged are perhaps unrealistic.

The bill states that the municipalities shall pay the sum of the accumulated net retail equity of the customers supplied with power through the assets and the accumulated depreciation associated with the assets. Now if we were going out to buy a property ourselves, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that would be a very reasonable way of purchasing it. But I want to point out that the people in these areas like the Niagara region have been paying in their rates towards capital all these years. Now after having bought the capital in their rural rates, they are now going to have to buy it over again. They are actually, according to this, going to pay for those capital assets, less the depreciation. Why should they not be given credit over the years for some of the money they have paid in?

If we took this to its logical conclusion and ultimately got to the point where the province got rid of all rural hydro commissions, Ontario Hydro would end up with a huge amount of money for what they had sold, namely, capital. The people of Ontario have paid for this. Therefore, some consideration should be given to changing that method of determining the amount that municipalities should pay when they take over the rural plant.

I have one other very minor thing. On page four of the bill, section 2(13), there is a clause that sets the maximum remuneration for the commissioners. I find some objection to that. First of all, it seems to me to be terribly unrealistic. It says: “The salaries of the members of the commissions established by subsection 1 for the term expiring with November 30, 1980, shall be fixed on or before October 1, 1979, in an amount that does not exceed the highest salary paid to the members of municipal commission operating in the regional area within the meaning of the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act on January 1, 1979.”

Mr. Acting Speaker: I might remind the member that we can deal with individual sections when the bill reaches the committee stage. We are just speaking to the principle of the bill at the moment.

Mr. Swart: I am going to close by saying that it seems to me there is a matter of some principle here. They put this in this act, although they have given municipalities the power to set out the salaries of other commissions. They don’t have to refer to any act. It is totally unrealistic anyhow, when we have a commission serving 3,000 people and another one serving 125,000 people, to say that those commissioners in the one serving 3,000 shouldn’t go above the maximum of the one serving 125,000.

If anything, what it will do is encourage increases in salaries. If the bill intended to keep them down, I would suggest the reverse will happen. It will encourage them to increase them. Quite frankly, those people in places like St. Catharines or Welland are going to have a lot of work in the next six months in amalgamating the commissions and the rural system with their own system. I don’t know if St. Catharines is the one that pays the most, but if it is it has to set the salaries right at the limit that exists there now.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for perhaps going into too much detail on that one at this time, but these details can be discussed when the bill goes to committee. I want to conclude by saying, regardless of whether amendments are adopted in this House in the committee stage or whatever takes place, we have to pass this bill this spring and get on with the job, regardless of how the structure is set up.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the bill in principle and I would ask the parliamentary assistant to consider an amendment I will move in committee. It is quite straightforward, and because I made my position rather clear to the minister, I am somewhat disappointed. I thought he might have included my request in his bill.

We in the area of Niagara Falls have in the past had two commissions, the commission from Niagara Falls and the commission from the village of Chippawa. We have been asked subsequently to take in a very small rural portion, some 600 customers. We have been blessed over the years with very good representation on the various commissions. My amendment will have to do with asking the minister to keep those people in place during the transitional period.

While I can’t discuss or debate the bill until it goes into committee, I would ask that the minister or his parliamentary assistant consider our request, because in the bill itself the government has seen fit to allow local autonomy to take precedence over many other areas that have been regionalized. The very fact there are 10 commissions being set up throughout the Niagara Peninsula would indicate the government has made that a paramount procedure in dealing with this aspect of regional Niagara.

On that basis, it would follow that because the city of Niagara Falls passed by resolution a request to have that commission from the two jurisdictions kept in place -- some seven in number -- and the fact that those 600 people who were formerly in the rural areas are represented on council by the member who moved the resolution, it should be very obvious to the parliamentary assistant those people will be well served by the commission that’s in place.

Formerly that area was served by Ontario Hydro and did not have any direct representation. Because the rural member has seen fit to move the resolution on behalf of the city, and because the government itself has seen fit to have this kind of involvement by the 10 commissions, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to consider that kind of an assessment in the content of his bill. That is, he should consider keeping that commission intact, or at least allowing the municipality to go through the process of keeping those people in place during the transitional period. This is when it’s most important to have people with experience who can carry us through those times when I think experience is most necessary.

I ask him if he will consider changing the bill, and, if not, if he will support my amendment in the committee stage.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We will be supporting the bill in principle, in spite of a lot of questions we have about it and some possible amendments to be put forward from the NDP.

I would like simply to indicate to the parliamentary assistant that I, in particular, want to be asking three general kinds of questions about this bill as it relates to the overall reform of hydro structures in the province. I know we’ve been through bills like this one in the last several months. One wonders at what point we’re going to be able to establish more general principles that suit what will be, very shortly, the decade of the 1980s.

I want to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister about the whole principle of having hydro authorities come under the authority of municipal councils and why the government is still seeking to limit councils’ authority in that manner -- as suggested by my colleague, the member for Welland-Thorold. If, during a transitional period such as is provided for in this bill, the ministry feels it necessary to retain some of the structures and some of the representation that have existed in the past in the Niagara region, why not propose, while this legislation is before us, that for any municipality which wishes to take on the authority it would be permissive? Any municipality which wishes to take on the authority for the operation of hydro within its boundaries should be permitted to do so. It seems to me that is the direction in which municipal councils, with some government support at the provincial level, have been moving, That’s true in the area that I come from, the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think it’s a progressive step and I’d like to see the enunciation of a clear government policy on the question.

[4:45]

I would also like to raise some questions during the committee stage about the provisions that are being made within this bill for the swapping of authority and facilities with the Canadian Niagara Power Company Limited. I have some concerns about that, and I would like to get a detailed explanation from the parliamentary assistant at committee stage of what is involved in a swap with an American-owned private corporation which is running a utility in the lowest-cost area of the Niagara Peninsula. I would like to know how that benefits the people in that region, or how it is supposed to benefit the public Ontario hydro system as a whole. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be prepared to answer questions along that line.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, restructuring is obviously a big step forward but, like my colleagues, I’m not at all happy about the way it is being approached. It seems to me that this bill, the others that have been before this House previously, and the geographic areas for which restructuring is still being considered, demonstrate a real lack of leadership on the part of the ministry concerned.

I’m really unhappy about the idea of local option and local negotiations when it comes to the hydro problems we face in many municipalities. The approach that is being taken, and has been taken in Niagara and is still under way in Hamilton-Wentworth and in some other regions, pits the residents of one geographic area against the residents of another. Unlike sewer and water service, hydro is provided to almost every home in, at least, southern Ontario. In that regard, it’s more like a social service.

It seems to me that we should either have it at the same rate for all residential users, which may not be practical at this time, or we should have a rate that is based on the cost of providing service, not on geographic boundaries, but on urban versus rural, something along the lines that Bell Canada uses for the provision of telephone service, based on the type of service one receives rather than on a local option determined by a vote of the local council.

A second point that concerns me in this bill relates to the matter of appointment of the hydro commissions. There are provisions in this bill for the commissioners to be elected by a general vote of the customers of the utility unless the local council decides otherwise. I really don’t understand the philosophy that lies behind this provision. What is democracy in this province and in this country? Are we moving to a situation where we’ll soon be electing dog catchers, where we’ll soon be electing sanitary engineers, where we’ll soon be electing all municipal employees, as they seem to do in a country that neighbours this one, or are we moving in the direction of giving local councils a clearly defined role in our democratic system?

I believe we should move that way, that local councils should be given responsibilities and allowed to carry out those responsibilities without encumbrances such as this. I really don’t understand the thinking behind these provisions in this bill, and I hope that the parliamentary assistant will be able to explain in some great detail during committee stage.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself to Bill 29 this afternoon, perhaps with some reservations.

I have had the opportunity in the past six or seven months, since the bill was introduced last fall, to review some of the matters relating to restructuring of hydro. If I look at the Power Commission Act of 1973, an act to amend the wholesaling of energy through retail outlets under the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, I see that at one time this association had rather special powers, in a sense. It was included in the policy making of the Ontario hydro system. The changes and restructuring in this bill remove some of that bargaining power from the Ontario Municipal Electric Association.

I am concerned about that part. I think somewhere along the line Ontario Hydro has to be accountable to somebody in our society, whether it be the Legislature or the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. I am concerned about that because they have had good relationships in the past. In fact, they have had some policy decision-making efforts to bring hydro to its present state in the province of Ontario, a rather prosperous and healthy energy-producing association.

There have been some comments related to the cross-structure, the rate disparities throughout the region. I am concerned about that. The member for Lincoln mentioned my hydro bill being $43.34 a month. Well, perhaps there should be some clarification on this. It is rather high. It is higher than that in some other areas.

As a rural customer of Ontario Hydro I’ve had good service from them. It may cost me more but I am paying for my own water system. I don’t have a water bill handed to me every month or every second month from the municipality. I have my own lighting system. I have a floodlight on my house so that I don’t have to depend on street lighting. If one looks at those hidden energy costs not shown in hydro bills, there may be a higher cost for a local utility.

The Amalgamated Niagara South school board doesn’t have one mill rate for all the schools; it varies through the municipalities. I suggest that one upper-tier utility with a uniform rate structure, is questionable. I think the rates would vary throughout the region.

A few years ago I received a letter from a ratepayer in the town of Pelham concerning the high cost of electricity there. I checked with Ontario Hydro at that time and they said they had installed all-new mercury vapour lighting throughout the area in question. The hydro man told me that somebody had to pay for it. So there was an extra cost and it was added to the hydro bill. Of course, that meant they were paying a higher cost for hydro.

So I bring this to the attention of the Legislature. Going to a single tier has been suggested in a number of studies. It has taken three and a half years to bring this bill forward. I attended several meetings related to the restructuring throughout the area and the feeling was, and it came through loud and clear, that people did not want any more regionalization of any services; regional costs are too high. They are afraid we’ll have a uniform rate but wide disparities in the actual cost of billing each month. And it would happen. It’s worked that way in the amalgamation of the schools; it would work this way in the amalgamation of local utilities.

I have a couple of gentlemen here from the hydro utility of the city of Port Colborne. I have been discussing with them, for example, that when the city of Port Colborne takes over that part of the old township of Humberstone, there’s going to be a cost involved. I guess the debates have been going on for some three and half years or longer, to find out just what the cost will be, for the amalgamation of rural hydro and Port Colborne’s utility. I don’t know how factual it is, but it’s been suggested it could be $1 million or more. Somebody is going to have to bear the cost once the two utilities are amalgamated. That means there will be a higher cost to hydro users in the old portion of the city, or in the urban area as it is called now. So it could vary five per cent; it could vary up to eight per cent. I don’t know what that cost will be. I’ve checked with the municipality of Wainfleet and they said if they were ever to establish a hydro commission they wouldn’t know where they would get the money because it may cost them $3 million to $4 million to buy out the present facilities from Ontario Hydro.

That’s something that really bothers me on this particular bill. Passing this bill reminds me of the bill passed for regional government. We’re giving Hydro a blank cheque. Once this bill goes through then we’ll sit down and tell them what we want for that facility, for that plant, all the lines and all the poles that are up and down each road in the rural areas. I can tell the parliamentary assistant now that I can’t recall when I’ve seen a new hydro pole put in place since I purchased my property in Sherkston. It was probably about 25 years ago. Surely, like any other utility, the write-off is usually 20 years.

This bill tells me there should be a cost involved in this for the takeover by local utilities from Ontario Hydro. I think my colleague, the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong), raised this matter when that bill was introduced. He shed some light on the subject for the government. As I understand it, there is to be no cost for the takeover of this utility from Ontario Hydro when it’s enlarged into a city or larger utility.

I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that that’s something that should be in this bill. There should be no cost involved. Look at some of the long-term debts facing the municipalities. In my area, there’s one that’s $8 million. Add another $1 million or $1.5 million onto that and their present program of heavy expenditures for water and sewer facilities, and I don’t know where they are going to get the money.

There is something else that is missing in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the member for Erie knows that he should be speaking to something that is in the bill, not something that isn’t.

Mr. Haggerty: I’m just coming to the bill now, Mr. Speaker. Normally a bill makes reference to the Ontario Municipal Board when a new debenture has to ‘be issued or there is new financing. This bill does not include that. I’m suggesting to the minister that if Ontario Hydro wants to unload their facilities in the area there should be no cost to the utility absorbing it. I suggest there should be something in the bill, or consideration given to a bill similar to that restructuring York Centre.

[5:00]

The other matter concerns the Canadian Niagara Power Company in Fort Erie. There should be a correction in the bill itself; it’s not Bill 785, it should be Bill 783. Is there an amendment coming forward on that, I wonder? I am sure that has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Energy.

In this particular area where the cost of electricity to consumers is mentioned, I suggest that Canadian Niagara Power should take over the whole region. What it means to me is -- and I will be included under Canadian Niagara Power; they will take over 750 customers from Ontario Hydro -- my bill will be reduced 25 per cent. In the agreement with the town of Fort Erie which was signed, I believe, in 1935 and it is a 50-year agreement, the cost to the customers in Fort Erie is six mills, or six cents per kilowatt-hour, which I think is a favourable rate. If that was applied across the region, we would have a standard rate that I think would be acceptable to all the utilities and all the customers.

That raises another question. If one particular company, a private company, can supply energy at that cost, why cannot Ontario Hydro. This particular company is Canadian Niagara Power but I guess it would be affiliated with an American power utility on the other side of the river, Niagara Mohawk Power. I suggest that the parliamentary assistant look at that; it could be advantageous for the people in the region to have Canadian Niagara Power actually take it over or perhaps we could purchase hydro at that rate.

Mr. Speaker, that’s about all I have on this bill. I support it in principle but I think there are many things that could be added to it to make it a more workable bill. My main concern is the capital debt that would be required by certain utilities and, eventually, the taxpayers in the community, who will have to absorb that cost. I would suggest to the minister that the same consideration be given to this bill as was given to a previous amendment, on a recommendation by the member for York Centre. I think it shows that the government is listening and I would appreciate if the parliamentary assistant would give some consideration to that point.

Mr. Bradley: I rise in support of the principle of Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Many times when we are involved in political life, there are those who say it is frustrating and many of our constituents indicate to us that this must often he the case. However, I think in this bill we see one of the strengths of the kind of input we have had at the local level in the Niagara Peninsula -- input that was available to individual members of the Legislature from the peninsula. We see a decision being made which I am convinced was at least influenced by the minority situation we have in the House at the present time.

I am delighted to see that the government has opted for the lower-tier option as opposed to the region-wide or upper-tier option which many in the area, although certainly not the majority of people, were advocating. During the process there were some who even questioned the need for such a bill. Some have suggested it is legislative action merely designed to get Ontario Hydro off the hook in terms of retailing electric power to many of its rural customers.

The bill is before us, however, and some of us see it as, I think a rationalization of a situation that relates to the provision of hydro-electric power in a specific area of the province. Indeed, there has been extensive study and local input -- some might suggest almost too much, although I would not agree with that contention.

On September 21, 1978, when this matter was up for discussion through the local media in the peninsula and representatives from various hydro-electric power commissions within the Niagara Peninsula and municipal councils were giving comments, an interesting chain of events took place that I would consider to be coincidental. I had a statement prepared to be issued on the next day and being relatively new to the process, at least at the provincial level, I happened to mention to some people the fact that the statement would be issued. I got a call from the Ministry of Energy, from an individual’s office, asking for a copy of the statement, which I had not yet released. How that person happened to know I was going to release a statement saying I was against a region-wide utility and in favour of the lower tier that this bill brings forward, I will never know.

Mr. Nixon: The parliamentary assistant doesn’t miss a trick.

Mr. Ashe: It was before my time.

Mr. Bradley: I can only speculate on how that information got there. Nevertheless, if I wanted to draw a logical conclusion I could draw the conclusion that the statement made by the representative of the government the next day, beating me to the draw, saying that indeed there would be a lower-tier option adopted by the government, was perhaps in some indirect way promoted by the potential statement that I was to make.

Mr. Nixon: The people back home appreciated that.

Mr. Bradley: On the other side one might disagree with that, but there are those who would be suspicious enough to agree. At the time I indicated, and I indicate now, that with all of the large urban municipalities -- that is those representing 75 per cent of the Niagara region’s population -- and the major public utilities commissions indicating their opposition, it was incredible to me that any serious consideration would be given to imposing a regional utility system upon the people of the Niagara Peninsula.

There appeared to be little doubt that the board of Ontario Hydro was intent upon proceeding with regionalization of hydro services in the Niagara Peninsula. Some would suggest it was merely looking for some local body to rubber-stamp its wishes. It came as no surprise that the provincial steering committee would recommend the single-tier option, even though the local study team established to review the various alternatives involved in restructuring could reach no consensus on the subject.

Since St. Catharines city council and the majority of the members of the St. Catharines Public Utilities Commission stated their preference for the retention of a local commission to serve the city, it was obvious that any other option, be it a regional utility or a division of the region into two large commissions, would be unacceptable. It would seem appropriate, however, that the St. Catharines Public Utilities Commission accept responsibility for the hydro customers residing in the former Louth section of St. Catharines.

I think it is only right that those municipalities -- and ours was in a position to do that -- which had a rural area easily accessible, one that could be easily accepted into the structure without bumping the rates too high, should assume that responsibility. Certainly St. Catharines city council and its representatives, and I, as the representative from the constituency of St. Catharines, saw that as being a very logical and reasonable outcome.

It seemed to me -- and some people were suggesting it at this time -- that by referring the matter to regional council for consideration Ontario Hydro, through the provincial steering committee, was looking for some elective body to endorse its own views and thereby place the stamp of legitimacy on the recommendation for a regional hydro system.

In the past the people of St. Catharines have already been forced to bear the lion’s share of the financial burden of regional government and increases in regional water and sewage charges. It was unfair at that time and would be now to ask them to subsidize the residents of neighbouring municipalities through substantial increases in hydro rates. I am happy that by adopting the system we are adopting in this bill that will not be the case.

While there may have been some within the regional family who would have liked to see the regional municipality of Niagara itself assume responsibility for hydro services, I think it was clear -- and some of the gentlemen perhaps in the gallery would agree with this -- that the overwhelming majority of the residents of St. Catharines would see no advantage to yielding yet another power to what many consider to be a surplus level of administration. The member for Welland-Thorold dwelt on that to a certain extent, indicating that the atmosphere for a region-wide hydro system had been in effect poisoned by the fact that we had had such an unfortunate experience with regional government and region-wide charges in other areas. Even those who had benefited in the initial stages of regional government at the expense of the large municipalities were now recoiling from the opportunity once again to do so because of the fact they saw the total cost of regionalization was so great that even they ultimately would not benefit.

It seemed to me that neither a single utility operated by the region itself -- and that was once considered by one of the regional individuals who had, perhaps, a vested interest or certainly an interest in having the region take it over and provide the service -- nor one under the sole jurisdiction of a regional utilities commission, would serve the best interests of the people of the constituency which I represent. It appeared that a considerable number of representatives of other Niagara Peninsula area municipalities, some of whom may be in the gallery today, agreed with that. I speak in favour of this particular bill. There are certainly some details that require clearing up, but I commend the government for moving in the direction I consider is correct, as do, obviously, many people on the other side.

I feel we have a situation where the capital debt must be looked at carefully. The member for York Centre mentioned during his comments on the bill as it affected his constituency, that we had to look at the supplying of plants, the supplying of capital assets by Ontario Hydro to the local commissions, and just what the cost would be to those commissions. I think the member at that time pointed out that some of these capital assets were accumulated though expenditures made by developers and, obviously, the developers are not taking it out of their own pockets so we know that ultimately that means they are being paid for through the residents who have purchased homes or properties in that area and had them developed, and through impost charges.

If some of these assets were accumulated in that way, it would seem to me fair and equitable that the people of that area should not be charged twice, once through the utilities commission and once through the impost fees that might have been charged for those assets. I would hope that through reasonable negotiations for a compromise that is acceptable to all concerned, the planned acquisition can take place on terms favourable to those commissions and municipalities who have requested it.

In conclusion, I hope this bill will be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity -- it would be nice to conclude it this afternoon -- and that suitable amendments, minor as they might be, can be made which will make the bill a little more acceptable to those of us on this side, and perhaps even to some individual members on the government side. In saying this, I commend this to the members of the House as a bill worthy of quick passage.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I must say I did not anticipate such participation by the honourable members. I have something like four pages of notes. I think everybody has probably realized by now that a lot of the points made were duplicated; in many cases they were exact opposites. I think from that we can see the problems that have come about in all the various municipal hydroelectric restructuring, and it has been rather difficult to reach a consensus. There was much mention of that; the long process, the majority report versus the minority report.

For the benefit of the honourable member who raised the point, I think it was the member for Lincoln, the government never did receive the majority report, I can put it officially on the record, if it has not been done already -- and I realize that reference to that fact was made by the member for Welland-Thorold -- the government did, in fact, receive the majority report, albeit after the minority report was received. But they were both received through Hydro, which was the route they were to come and, of course, were considered.

The member for Lincoln talked about the blessings of regional government -- to use his terminology -- and many of the other honourable members made reference to regional government, sometimes in glowing terms, sometimes otherwise. But the comedy I find in that particular reference is it depends on who is putting it forth. For example, for the cost of sewer and water services, the representative from the larger municipality indicates that the larger municipality has carried the burden of regional rates by that municipality carrying a higher cost. When one hears the representative of the smaller community, one kind of hears the same thing. They cannot both be right. I believe it was stated that the hydro-electric service, as a utility, should be the same as the sewer and water rates and that everybody would pay the same.

[5:15]

In fact, I understand not everybody in regional Niagara does pay the same water rate at the retail level; in fact, the region is a wholesaler and all local rates are not the same. That’s not much different from what we talk about in a public utility, whether it be the Ontario Hydro rural system and its two rate structures at the residential level, or even within a local hydro-electric system, where they are purchasing from Ontario Hydro -- in the case of the local distributor, if you will -- at a wholesale rate and adding on their local cost of distribution. That’s why it would be virtually impossible, and probably not very fair, to have the same rates for everybody.

I will try to cover more specifically some of the points made. The member for Lincoln made reference to his bill, and many others have talked about their bills. They might be interested in knowing that my hydro bill is something over $500 a year -- and I don’t have electric heat. I’m one of the privileged ones who lives in a rural-rated area. Mind you, the Durham restructuring bill will be coming --

Mr. Nixon: You’re not paying rural rates, though, are you?

Mr. Ashe: Our one rate -- the lower of the two rural rates.

Mr. Nixon: You could get an extension cord right from Pickering.

Mr. Ashe: I live right in Pickering. Pickering to date has not been blessed with a hydro utility of its own. Possibly a month from now it will have one in the works. I say “in the works.” The “in the works” has been coming for a while. But I mean in terms of the legislation.

Mr. Bradley: That’s a story we’ve been hearing quite often: “in the works.”

Mr. Ashe: That one’s coming.

There was mention by the member for Lincoln of the nature of the three-year review and the payment for same. First of all, may I say that it is up to the council as to the nature of its review. If nothing has greatly changed within the structure of the municipality -- if there haven’t been any great shifts in population or any great population growth

-- there really is no study to do. But it is up to the council at least every three years to acknowledge the fact that it is aware of it and to pass a resolution accordingly.

If there is need for greater study at that time -- possibly because of changing populations, possibly because of the thrust of their populace on the council -- one could be proceeded with in somewhat more depth. Even at that time I might say that much of the cost of the work in providing the statistics, particularly those relative to the Ontario Hydro areas, would be borne by Ontario Hydro, as it has been done in the past. The costs of their administration are borne by Ontario Hydro. Any additional local costs that would be put out would be borne by the local authorities.

There was mention by many members -- and indirectly I’m speaking to an anticipated amendment which will be dealt with more fully in committee -- about allowing municipalities to adjust their boundaries. Let me point out how completely unfair that would be.

We’re all familiar with the term “load skimming.” That would be it to the nth degree. Naturally, the utility and/or the municipality involved would be very pleased, as would the consumers who would benefit, to expand to some degree the present boundaries of a utility, particularly those who are not expanding to their boundaries right away.

But think about the balance of the people; not only the balance of the people in that particular area. We can say, “They’re not going to pay any more than they are now.” In theory, and I suppose in the short term, they will not. But keep in mind, if this same philosophy and this same policy were put into effect throughout all the regions of the province, let alone all the other municipalities and public utilities commissions in the province, and they just expanded a little, what would happen?

The remaining people who are served by Ontario Hydro -- whether they be in the lower-rated level or the higher-rated level -- would obviously have to pay more. As you cut down the numbers receiving that service, they would all have to pay considerably more. Is that really fair? I don’t think it is. It may be fair to a specific group of people, but it would be to the detriment of all the other consumers ultimately, in that municipality and ultimately throughout the province.

Mr. Hall: That’s what the bill does in my four boroughs.

Mr. Ashe: I think it’s also fair to say that there is no doubt, leaving it this way the existing boundaries with the ultimate choice, and the choice will be local, to expand to the boundaries of the municipality. Yes, I would think it would ultimately put some pressures on the council to look at that and, possibly, make a decision. But if they always knew they could just expand it another street or two, would they really ever take on that task and that responsibility? No, they would turn around and blame it all on Ontario Hydro for raising their rate levels higher than the local percentage increases which, as I mentioned, in terms of numbers has to be inevitable.

There has been a great difference of opinion on the nature of the commission appointments needing complete flexibility. I think you get to a point where local input, local autonomy, really has to come to an end. I think there has been a lot of flexibility, a lot of change from the original principles. Without completely throwing the original principles out the window I think what is in this bill is consistent with previously restructured situations.

We’ve had the extreme, for example, that would have no representation from existing commissions on the interim utility until November 1980. We’ve gone from that extreme to the other extreme where all of them carry on, bar none, and just add the numbers up. I would suggest that what is in the bill is, in my view, a very reasonable compromise. There is the autonomy to choose either an interim or intermediate commission of three or five members, acknowledging that if there is more than one commission already in existence there would be five and, at the same time, indicating that from this commission being dissolved, there has to be at least half the representation. In the case of a new area brought in, similarly they would have to -- and should quite rightly -- have a choice in that commission in power until November 1980. In my view, that’s a compromise, not only in terms of the numbers but in terms of having some continuity.

I frankly don’t buy the necessity of carrying everybody, albeit, they were -- and I’m sure, are -- good people, because they are well spoken of and well regarded not only by the commission itself but by the council and the members. Nobody disputes, I’m sure, the amount of positive input they have put to their duties over the last number of years they have been in office. But I think it is fair to say that the continuity of that good service could just as well be served by a lesser number of the seven.

On the other side of the coin, the extreme that said, “We don’t want to appoint anybody who’s on the existing commission,” I think it would be unfair for the continuity of that commission not to have representation and a voice from the existing commissions during that interim period, So I think the three and five is a reasonable compromise that, hopefully can be acknowledged by all.

I’m told there is no commission in the province that would have numbers in excess of five. I really don’t think, all things being said and being fair, that the municipality represented by the member for Niagara Falls should have a different representation than any other PUC in the province.

Mr. Kerrio: In the interim, yes. It’s just a common-sense approach.

Mr. Ashe: A common-sense approach is to have continuity and I think the legislation allows for that.

Generally, of course, there has been support for the legislation, and I appreciate the support mentioned, although after listening to some members I’m not quite sure that’s what they were saying at the end or not.

Mr. Nixon: The member for Grimsby made it very clear he wasn’t supporting it.

Mr. Ashe: I said there was the odd exception.

Mr. Nixon: I found him very convincing.

Mr. Ashe: There is no member from Grimsby. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall) represents the Grimsby area as well.

There were some comments made relative to remuneration of that interim commission.

I might say the legislation, as written, has fully acknowledged the excellent input from not only local PUCs and local municipalities, but more important the local members of this Legislature. I would suggest that that particular reference to not having salaries any higher than the highest already in existence comes about because of guidance the government received from local members in that regard. If it is now felt that remuneration is not appropriate that’s fine, but our guidance came from members who would be affected.

Regarding salaries to be paid to the commission after November 1980, that decision is up to each local government, the local PUC, and in turn of course the local council; they can determine whatever is appropriate. I appreciate and understand that there quite possibly is a more onerous responsibility on some of the larger commissions than on some of the small ones. I agree with you that the local council, guided I am sure by its local commission, will come up with an appropriate figure that can be justified to their common electorate.

The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) mentioned a typographical error of 785 versus 783. He is correct and we appreciate his drawing it to our attention. In terms of the debentures, there is of course no inheriting of debentures when you are taking over an area from Ontario Hydro. The reason moneys have to change hands is, obviously, that the utility is buying an asset. At the same time, Ontario Hydro has liabilities that came about because of that area and others. They have to be in a position to retire those debentures with the funds they receive from the sale of assets they no longer will own.

Regarding a method of valuation, a procedure is already laid down. If there is still dispute following that -- and there could be, and I am sure probably will be in some instances -- an arbitrator can be appointed to adjudicate the differences until agreement is reached; either an agreement between the parties or else the arbitrator comes down with his decision as to who is right.

So it is not a matter of bartering, although I think it is acknowledged that negotiations take place to some degree. Again, I think good communications is the key to reaching a successful conclusion.

There was one other comment from the new member for Wentworth (Mr. R. F. Johnston) to which I want to respond. I was a little concerned and a little confused about some of his references.

First of all, I am not quite sure I would agree with his argument that hydro is a social service. I think we have a lot of social services now. As a matter of fact, some honourable members and others would debate that we have too many social services, more than we can afford. But I think hydro is a utility service like others. It is a service that is provided. I think it is quite justifiable to say that the prices can be different in different parts of the province, let alone different parts of the country.

In that particular reference, he made a comment relative to election versus appointment, and I may have missed it. I appreciate that the honourable member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the honourable member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) -- and possibly this was the area the honourable member for Wentworth was exploring -- raised the question as to whether, ultimately, a commission should in fact be a council. We are not debating that question at this point in time. At the moment it is government policy that the commissions have served well in the past and I don’t think anybody disputes this greatly. They may have been unhappy with the odd board member or commissioner from time to time, but generally, I think it’s fair to say that this method has served us well.

[5:30]

Acknowledging that there is a greater push for autonomy and local decision-making by the elected council, which I don’t think anybody greatly disagrees with in general philosophy, there is still a great difference of opinion when we’re making that first step as to how the commission should take office. I’m not speaking of the interim commission until November 1980 but the procedure thereafter. The right is there within the legislation for the local council to appoint if it wishes. If it is not disposed to take that option the local commission will be elected, as it has been in this province, I might say, for something like 70 years.

I might point out that the Speaker of the Legislature and the Acting Speaker who was in the chair at the time the honourable member for Wentworth was on his feet, have both served in that capacity in their earlier political careers. I would suggest the democratic process is not new. If anything one can debate whether it is a better fulfilment of the democratic process to elect the commission directly or whether it is better reflected through elected members on the council taking on that task.

I would suggest that is an area where there are great disagreements even within the municipal sector. That’s quite obvious from the fact that in the restructuring bills previously passed, and in this one, the local council is given some degree of that choice when we say: “Do you want your commission elected or do you want to appoint it?” Even there, the elected councils have not reached a consensus, obviously, because some of them have chosen both routes. As a matter of fact, if I understand and remember correctly, in terms of numbers most have opted to go the election route. I guess they feel that the democratic system has been well served in that regard.

Since time passes on, I hope I have addressed many of the points that have been raised by the numerous members. Undoubtedly, we’ll be getting into more specifics within the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Mr. Ashe, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the York Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1978.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this is strictly a housekeeping amendment to allow the same procedures relative to members of council being able to serve on the commission, which is in effect in all other areas. There is no really fundamental change to what has been happening in practice or what is happening elsewhere.

Mr. Stong: Very briefly, I rise in support of this amendment. As I see it, it does exactly what the parliamentary assistant has said. Our party also regards it as a type of housekeeping endeavour and will support it.

Ms. Gigantes: We will be supporting the bill in principle. The only question I would wish to raise about it is one that I raised earlier concerning Bill 29, having to do with the limitation on the number of elected councillors who are permitted on the hydro-electric commission. Those questions will presumably be looked at in more detail when we go to committee stage on Bill 29. I will assume that my questions will be answered in a general way there.

Mr. Ashe: Responding to the member for Carleton East, I would have to suggest that what is happening in Bill 30, is a minor amendment to make it the same as all the rest. The overall philosophical structure of the commission vis-à-vis majorities or minorities, or ultimately that it be a committee of the council, I would suggest is a policy decision we’re not prepared to make at this time. I would hope that with that explanation, although I appreciate it is not the one the honourable member had hoped for, we can proceed at least to get this bill as far as York is concerned in line with all of the others; in other words making it legal that members of council can sit on the commission.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have an opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the minister would have an opening statement in regard to this bill. We on this side are -- I will use my words carefully -- somewhat confused at the minister’s approach in presenting Bill 52 to the Legislature. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), in response to questions in the House a week or so ago, indicated this bill really had no effect. He said it was sort of a con job, if I may use that term, to con foreign investors, perhaps European investors, in providing a “perception” -- that is the word the Treasurer used -- that we were doing something about what he considered the onerous tax burdens on mining companies.

Changing this bill, particularly changing the 35 per cent on the excessive profit above $30 million and up to $40 million, and the

40 per cent on the excessive profit above $40 million, was really a matter of trying to put a better gloss on the province as a place to invest funds. He indicated that really had no effect at all.

I understand, particularly in the excess profits over $40 million, this was only applied once in this history of Ontario; and that to Inco, I believe, in 1975. I understand also there are, offsetting balances shall we say, for the province to recover any excess taxes.

It seems to be a strange kind of a game we are playing here, if we are introducing legislation, to quote the Treasurer “to provide a perception to overseas investors that Ontario is a good place to invest.”

We will support the bill and try and hurry it through, because we don’t really see it’s going to have much effect on anything; but we certainly do question the need for such a bill in the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I rise, I am sure you will be surprised to know, in opposition to this bill on behalf of my colleagues.

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: It may not be exciting, but the revenues we are getting from the industry are not very exciting either; that’s one reason I am rising in opposition to it.

We are opposing this bill for some very specific reasons. I would not want the minister to think I was rising in opposition in some ideological fashion. There are very good fiscal reasons for opposing this bill.

As a matter of fact the minister should be ashamed to call himself the Minister of Natural Resources. Why does he not get rid of that title and stick with Energy and put somebody into Natural Resources who will get something from the natural resources for the people of Ontario? That is what we need in that ministry. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this minister has nowhere to go but up from his predecessors, so there is some kind of hope there I suppose; maybe that is why he took the job.

I look at other jurisdictions and the kind of return they get from their resources, and quite frankly we look pretty sad. I won’t dwell on them too long because we are debating mineral tax revenues in this jurisdiction, not others, and I can recognize that steely glint in the Speaker’s eye if I try to deviate from the principle of the bill.

But very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in 1977-78, with the existing tax structure on the mining industry, out of $2.7 billion worth of production Ontario received $39 million. That includes the corporation income tax from the mining industry, and that is a return of a little less than one and a half per cent of the value of production. In Saskatchewan, with only half a billion, $511 million worth of production, they received $113 million worth of revenue on metallic and non-metallic minerals; that is a 22.3 per cent return on the value of production. So there is a big difference between what we realize from our resources and what our sister province of Saskatchewan receives.

Mr. MacDonald: The industry is thriving and expanding in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Laughren: Yes; as a matter of fact, my colleague from York South is absolutely correct, in Saskatchewan this year there is going to be something like $80 million or $90 million worth of exploration. Do members know what exploration is going to be done in Ontario this year? Let me tell the minister, and through him the House: the same as the last two years, about $25 million in total for the province of Ontario. So despite the favours this government has bestowed upon the industry, despite the very favourable tax structure, exploration is not being carried out. So that is not the answer, giving them more and more breaks is not the answer; and the industry has been telling us that too, but the government doesn’t listen.

I used one year only as a comparison, namely 1977-78 for Saskatchewan, but I could go back over the years and it is the same. As a matter of fact just look at Ontario: For example in 1975, as a percentage of the value of production Ontario realized 7.38 per cent; in 1976 it was 2.75 per cent; in 1977 it was 1.87 per cent and in 1978 it was 1.14 per cent. So we keep dropping in terms of the proportion of the value of production we receive in the form of revenue from the industry; and that doesn’t make sense when we are dealing with a declining resource, a non-renewable resource that is being depleted. To get less and less out of it, as less and less is left in the ground defies logic; and that is in the metal and non-metal sector.

Some minister of this government comes before us every year with an excuse that we need to give more breaks to the industry because we want to encourage development and further processing; and they always have the arguments laid out as to why we have to give more to the mining industry. It is strange that other provinces don’t have to; yet they get the exploration and development out of the industry, which we don’t seem to be able to do in Ontario.

I was doing some work on exactly what we get out of the resources compared to what one company gets out of it; one company. You would never guess which company I am going to use as an example, Mr. Speaker: the giant of giants, Inco; and the return they get compared to the return the people of Ontario get.

[5:45]

We could go back a couple of years. In 1974 Inco’s net income was $298,588,000, for a return on shareholders’ equity of 21.1 per cent. That is a very good return on equity, as I am sure the minister would agree being a free enterpriser himself. The provincial revenue that year was $194 million -- that was one of the salad years -- for a return of eight per cent on the value of production of minerals. In 1975, Inco’s net income was $186,889,000, for a 12.6 per cent return on shareholders’ equity; whereas the province’s revenues dropped to $91 million, for a return of 3.8 per cent. In 1976, Inco’s net income was $196,758,000, for a 12.6 per cent return on shareholders’ equity; whereas the return to the people of Ontario was down to 2.6 per cent of the value of production.

Mr. Hall: Do the shareholders get all that?

Mr. Laughren: That is the return on shareholders’ equity. I think my friend knows what that is; that is based on the assets.

Mr. Hall: Was it distributed or was it retained?

Mr. Laughren: A company determines what proportion it retains as retained earnings and what proportion it distributes to its shareholders; that is a decision any company can make.

In 1977, Inco’s net income was $99,859,000, for a 5.2 per cent return on shareholders’ equity and, as I said earlier, the province got a 1.4 per cent return. Over those four years, from 1974 to 1977 inclusive, the return to Inco in net income was $782 million and the return to the province of Ontario was $391 million. It is very difficult to average averages so I will not go through that exercise.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It has never stopped you before.

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes, it has. I do not average averages. I really have a thing about that, among other things.

The return to one company on a nonrenewable mineral resource is greater than the return to the province for all our nonrenewable mineral resources. Does the minister really think he is being a good guardian of our nonrenewable resources in the province? I suppose the minister will stand up and say, “We are doing the best we can.” Well, we do not think they are. We think they are not doing the best they can. We think they are being unduly generous and that it is not necessary.

Then I look at their particular bill and see what kind of exemption is made. Is the minister encouraging exploration and development with this bill? I do not see any encouragement of exploration or development. I do not see any encouragement of further processing. I do not see the minister telling the mining industry to buy their machinery here whenever possible. I do not see him telling them anything that will improve our return on resources.

As a matter of fact, what the minister is telling them is that the people at the top -- the top companies -- are going to have to pay less taxes now. The minister is not doing anything for the struggling ones, the ones at the bottom; the ones that my friend the member for Rainy River talks about so often. The minister is helping a few at the top by removing the tax on profits in excess of $30 million. The minister is freezing the maximum amount at 30 per cent, whereas it previously went to 40 per cent.

We tried to find out which companies that would affect. We are told by the people in the ministry: “That is a secret; we cannot tell you that. We cannot even tell you how many companies, because then you would know who they were” -- as though those were not our resources. We can guess that the people who will benefit from this will be Inco, Rio Algom, Denison, Noranda, perhaps even Falconbridge this year. That is who will benefit from it. Those are not people who because of this gift will go out and explore and develop more and build a new refinery or set up a mining machinery industry in this province. They will not do any of those things.

I suspect the minister has extracted not a single promise from the industry in return for this bill -- probably nothing; at least nothing that will benefit the people of Ontario. We think that is fundamentally wrong. If I am not correct in my assertion that those are the companies, I would want the minister to correct me.

I am not taken in either by the argument that the minister may decide to make, namely, that it really does not affect anybody. The Deputy Minister of Treasury and Economics came into the budget lockup and said this was primarily a cosmetic change, because after all there is virtually nobody in that category now. In the years to come there are going to be companies in there and the government doesn’t want to be in the position of making this exemption when profits are high. They are doing it now; and you know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the profits of Denison, Rio Algom, Falconbridge, Inco and Noranda are going to be substantial in the next few years. It has already started.

The uranium industry, thanks to your government, is guaranteed enormous profits. Falconbridge has had an excellent first quarter and they too are going to be in those categories pretty soon. The government is doing it now because it will be embarrassed to do it when the profits are high. That’s not the way we would do business with the mining industry.

We, of course, have said for years we think the nonrenewable resources belong in the public sector. It is behaviour like this that reinforces our belief that our policies are correct in the whole resources field. We are not getting what we should be getting out of them. We are not getting what the economists call the “backward linkages and the forward linkages.” The government is not encouraging the mining companies to buy mining machinery or develop a mining machinery industry in this province, where there is a desperate need for it.

We import 91 per cent of our mining machinery in Ontario, in this country. That’s ludicrous when we are number two or three in the world in production of minerals. To be in that position is an embarrassment, and it’s fundamentally wrong.

The government is not encouraging companies like Falconbridge to build further processing facilities. The government should be aware of the fact that Falconbridge has been in Sudbury for 45 years and has yet to build a refinery. They just do the dangerous and the dirty work in Sudbury, namely the mining and the smelting. They ship the ore off to Kristiansand, Norway, for refining. That’s wrong, that’s not the way it should be done.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this bill and we intend to vote against it on second reading.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what my colleague has, said and support his contention that this is a bad piece of legislation. The city of Sudbury is the biggest mining complex in the world, make no mistake about it. Ontario is rich in mining, and yet the benefits that have accrued from these riches over the past 50 or 60 years are not evident in the mining communities in northern Ontario, basically because this government has not extracted from the corporations a just share of the wealth which is produced by the efforts of the miners and smeltermen who are participating in the activity of extracting the wealth from the ores of Ontario.

It is not as though you can come back at a later date and pick up this lost revenue, because once you mine a ton of ore it is one ton closer to the last ton you have. Make no mistake about it, this is a nonrenewable resource we are talking about. Yet this government in the past has not taken advantage of this wealth to put it to the use, not only for the people in the mining towns and the mining camps of northern Ontario but for all citizens. This is the wealth of all the citizens of the province of Ontario and they have a right to demand a fair share.

The comparative figures my colleague from Nickel Belt put on the record are indicative of the attitude this government has had over the years. When this legislation came through, this form of taxation showed some progressiveness to it in that the more wealth the mining company had the higher was the tax rate. That made for some semblance of order. It showed that the persons with the dollars, the persons with the ability to pay, the company with the ability to pay, would carry a heavier load than a company that doesn’t have that ability. I don’t see anything wrong with that concept; we supported it at that time, when this legislation came in. But here we are taking off the top peak, we’re taking off the cream.

Any company that has in excess of $40 million profit certainly has ability to pay. You cannot deny that fact. What is happening here, in technical terms, is that the maximum rate of taxation in the province of Ontario will be 30 per cent, regardless of whether the profit is $100 million, $200 million or $300 million; this is the kind of money we’re talking about.

In the Globe and Mail, just last week, I see where Noranda went up to $136 million. Do a fast calculation and see how many dollars you are letting Noranda off the hook for. Certainly the giant of giants, as my colleague has mentioned, has fallen on hard times. Last year they only made $99.9 million profit. But they’ll be back up to their $300 million figure. That’s the time the money should be extracted and this was a system whereby it was done.

On the other end, maybe there is some justification for the adjustment whereby they raised the exemption from $100,000 to $250,000; maybe that will encourage exploration and give some relief to struggling mining companies, the small ones that just haven’t got that kind of cash. To that degree I’m possibly partly supportive of what the minister is doing. But it’s the top boys, over the $30 million figure and over the $40 million figure.

I’m sorry the minister was not around last night. We met with some of these lads at the Royal York Hotel. The boys from Inco were there. They didn’t talk to us; they didn’t criticize the tax system. They’re doing well. The miners were looking very happy last night.

Mr. Nixon: Was that a free bar and dinner?

Mr. Germa: It was a good dinner. The mining boys have the bucks.

Mr. Nixon: Did I hear you say the food was lousy?

Mr. Germa: No, it was good. The miners didn’t make it, though. It was the Royal York.

Mr. Hall: How can you sit at their table and say this today?

Mr. Germa: Miners don’t tend to be good cooks.

I was talking to some of the top brass from Inco last night and several other mining boys, and they were very optimistic about the metals market in the future. I would say the minister is losing out, he’s losing out on a bonanza that is still to come. But I would like to say again it cannot come forever; you cannot reserve it and put it in the bank and go back and get it later.

The Arabs have indicated what they’re doing with their natural resources; Premier Lougheed has taken advantage of his natural resources; and here is the province of Ontario once again selling out at bargain-basement prices. That’s been the history of all of northern Ontario, where most of our mining is concentrated. And the minister wonders why this government has no credibility in northern Ontario. It’s indicative of the members that northern Ontario sends here. They’re fed up with what is happening in the mining communities of northern Ontario. It’s a wonder the government wouldn’t take a hint or learn something from the political experience they’ve had in northern Ontario.

Mr. Lane: We do pretty well.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh yes; it hurts, eh?

Mr. Germa: That’s another aberration, the Manitoulin Island thing. I think the member for Nickel Belt said if they put one more foot of asphalt on Manitoulin Island the island would sink.

Now it is possible for this government to buy a seat in northern Ontario; they have bought a few.

Mr. Lane: We are high and dry while Manitoulin is under water.

Mr. Germa: They’ve never won any though, they can’t win a seat; there’s a price on everything, that’s for sure. They paid the price on Manitoulin; they got them and they’re stuck with them too.

It’s too bad the minister didn’t make an opening statement to explain his rationale for this exemption at the top level of income. Why is he showing mercy on a company with profit in excess of $40 million? They don’t need any help and the government of Ontario needs the tax dollars; it’s as simple as that.

Could I adjourn the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the member have something further to say later?

Mr. Germa: I may have.

On motion by Mr. Germa, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.