The Exeter Times-Advocate, 1975-06-26, Page 12 (2)g• 12
Times -Advocate, June 26, 1975
BY JACK RIDDELL M.P.P.
In reply to a question by Robert
ixorl. leader of the opposition,
reinier Davis said in the
gislature this week that he was
communication with Prime
inister Trudeau on the subject
f possible increases in the price
f crude oil and natural gas.
emier Davis said he made it
bsolutely clear that Ontario
pposed any increase in the price
f crude oil or natural gas until
uch time as inflation is brought
nder control and unemployment
s substantially reduced.
Premier Davis said that Mr.
Crudeau assured him, he un-
lerstood Ontario's arguments
Ind indicated that contrary to
:peculation, the Federal Cabinet
lad not yet made a decision
ilthough he anticipated that
some kind of a decision will be
made in the next few days.
Premier Davis informed the
.egislature that the following
lay he sent a telex to the Prime
Minister with copies to -the other
Premiers, to reaffirm Ontario's
position on the subject of
possible oil and natural gas price
,ncreases.
Mr. Nixon then wanted to
snow. as the Premier feels that
3n increase in the energy costs,
which Mr. Nixon believe to be a
act, is going to have a
ieleterious effect on our em-
loyment and add further
pressures to the inflation in the
Province opposes price increases
economy, why, the Government
of Ontario, which can in fact
control the policy of Ontario
Hydro, does not tell Ontario
Hydro that an increase in energy
rates cannot be permitted at this
time.
Ontario Hydro wants a 30
percent increase in Hydro rates
for 1975 and wants to double their
price in 5 years.
In his opening remarks during
the debates on the Estimates of
the Ministry of the Environ-
ment. Mr. W. Newman, Minister
of the Environment said that the
Ministry of the Environment has
established a reputation for
excellence in environmental
protection and enhancement
which is acknowledged
throughout the world. It was the
Ministry's intention to maintain
and improve this standard of
performance.
Mr. Newman referred to the
Speech from the Throne and said
that Ontario is presently con-
fronted by economic conditions
which call for strong and decisive
response from the people and
from the ` Government. His
ministry recognizes that the
Province's financial
requirements will be substantial
and there isneedfor restraint.
e a
He said that while effecting
restraints his Ministry does not
intend to follow a policy of
retrenchment. Mr. Newman
indicated that his Ministry will
increase its existing en-
vironmental protection
programmes and enhance the
quality of the environment at the
least possible cost to the in-
dustrial and commercial sector
of our economy and to the people
of this province.
In presenting the estimates of
the Ministry of the Environment,
Mr. Newman said the aggregate
for this year is $231,176,000 or an
increase of 15.6 percent over 1974-
1975.
As critic of the Ministry of the
Environment for the Liberal
Caucus, in my opening speech I
briefly touched on the
organizational structure of the
Ministry, whereby 1,066 ministry
personnel were decentralized and
although the Liberal Party
concur with decentralization,
accompanying this change was a
tremendous increase in ex-
penditures.
The expenditure for the entire
ministry increased by $69.5
million over the year before. For
1975-1976 the Committee is asked
to consider an additional ex-
penditure of $31 mililon over last
year. I stated that the Liberal
Party do not begrudge this
particular ministry the ad-
ditional expenditure if it reflects
an improved environment.
But I pointed out that the major
environmental issues are still
prevalent today as they were last
year or the year before or the
year before that. I indicated that
I was not convinced that the
Minister has accomplished or
will accomplish anything close to
that which needs to be done even
with the additional expenditure.
If the Environmental Impact
Assessment Bill in its present
form is anyindication of the
accomplishents of this Minister
then I would have to say that the
effort on the part of the Minister
and his staff leaves a great deal
to be desired.
I indicated that I assumed a
large part of the expenditure of
this ministry goes to funding
water and sewage projects in the
various municipalities and
believed that inroads in
correcting the pollution problems
in the various municipalities
throughout Ontario are being
made, but I wanted to know what
pressures were being brought to
bear on our neighbours to the
south to live up to their com-
mitments and obligations to get
back on schedule according to the
agreement that was made.
I also pointed out that the
Ministry of Environment has yet
to define the role of sanitary land-
fill sites within its overall waste
management policy. More land-
fill sites are not the answer. They
will merely postpone the garbage
crisis. The ultimate solution is
both to recycle garbage but more
importantly to reduce the amount
produced.
A ban on non -returnable bottles
would be a move in the right
direction in the reduction of
garbage at its source. The Solid
Waste Task Force has concluded
that non -refillable containers are
environmentally harmful and
that any switch fromtheuseof non-
refillable soft drink bottles and
cans to refillables is beneficial to
the environment.
Although the Task Force report
favoured a switch to returnable
bottles the Minister has merely
chosen to phase out the flip top
and not the can itself. I also
stated that many municipalities
are now trying to pass their own
bylaws to ban non -returnable
bottles but the Provincial
Government has refused to pass
any effective laws on banning of
the bottles and has refused in-
dividual
municipalites the
authority to enforce their own
bans.
Another problem which still
faces the Province is the question
of noise pollution. Noise causes
more complaints than any other
environmental problem. It is
being recognized as a contributor
to hypertension, nervousness,
upset stomach, muscle spasm,
ulcers, nervous breakdowns,
physical and mental exhaustion
and sometimes homicidal im-
pulses.
Because of the lack of
Provincial legislation, the local
governments and individuals are
left very much to their own to find
rebel. Municipalities are finding
a lot wrong with the Ontario
Government's complicated
model noise bylaw and are
hesitant to accept it. Only with
time, persistence, staff and
money could such a bylaw be
made operable and effective.
During the debates on the
estimates of the Ministry of the
Environment I asked the
Minister whether any relief
would be forthcoming • to the
property owners in Vanastra, the
phased out airbase just outside of
Clinton. The rate of the property
owners has increased 150 per-
cent. I pointed out to the Minister
that it is a terrific assessment
and is providing a real hardship
to the people in Vanastra.
I also discussed fluorides which
are used in 85 percent treated
water in Ontario. Fluoride
studies now coming out ofthe
e
States show. that it may be
dangerous to the ecology.
Flouride studies have only been
going on for the last 4 years and,
therefore, there is not much data
on which to base any facts but it
seems that Flouride can ac-
cumulate in fish and wild lie.
The data coming from different
research in the United States
comprise a fairly compelling
case for treating flourides as
pollutants with a great capacity
to do ecological harm.
Bill 100, an Act respecting the
negotiation of , Collective
Agreements between School
Boards and Teachers, received
second reading this week. There
has been widespread opposition
to Section 64 of the Bill which
excludes principals and
vice -principals from thecollective
bargaining unit, hence they
would not be allowed to strike, on
the basis that this would drive a
wedge between principals and
their teachers and create an
impossible situation for prin-
Sy GORDON MORLEY
Mrs. Hamilton of Toronto and
Mrs. Reta Gibbard of Ancaster
were holidaying with Mr. & Mrs.
Douglas Lewis and family this
past week.
Mrs. Mary Amos arrived home
last weekend after a four week
visit with her son Ross and family
and her daughter Mrs. Alan
Hodgson and family.
Colin Patterson, a student for
the ministry was guest speaker
last Sunday in the United Church.
Mrs. Jim Hodgins of Strathroy
visited Wednesday with her
parents Mr. & Mrs. Fred Lewis.
Miss Kathleen Morley and
Gordon were Thursday dinner
guests with Mr. & Mrs. Ray
Mawson in Parkhill.
Several from this area at-
tended Greenway strawberry
supper Saturday evening.
Murray Hodgins spent a few
days holidays last week with his
sisters, Joyce Hodgson and Mrs.
Barry McConnell, both of Lon-
don.
By MRS. HAMILTON HODGINS
Mr. & Mrs. Cleve Pullman
celebrated their 25th wedding
anniversary on Tuesday evening
with a family dinner and a
n
rece tio following owin in the Kirkton
Woodham Community Centre.
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon McKinnon,
Guelph spent a couple of days last
week with Mr. & Mrs. Grafton
Squire.
Mr. & Mrs. Peter Johnson and
family, Whitby, spent the
weekend with Mr. & Mrs. John
Scott.
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Johnson
attended the 25th wedding an-
niversary of Mr. & Mrs. Neil
Johnson, Kitchener in the Flying
Dutchman Motel on Saturday
evening.
cipals in the event of a strike.
The other contentious issue has
to do with voluntary or extra
curricular activities. The Bill
would place the activities as
contractual or negotiable items,
but the teachers want them to
remain as a voluntary part of
their work.
cwt ea de 7-11 e€ 7 -,add
Palmer's Flowers
EXETER 235-2603
In conjunction with
CANADA WEEK
and our fifth
ANNIVERSARY
&
CCAASRHR
Y SPECIALS
Tropicals
Freshy Cut
r
Daisies
& Mums
Gloxinias
& Mums
Per
Pot
Per
Bunch
Per
Pot
Sweetheart $349
RosesPer
Bunch
Odd 'n Sods ... See Our Sale Table
Palmer's Flowers
t
THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION
FINANCIAL REPORT 1974
Auditor's Report
o The Middlesex County Board of Education
We have examined the Revenue Fund and Capital Fund
lance Sheets of The Middlesex County Board of Education as at
mber 31. 1974. the Revenue Fund - Statement of Operations.
e Statement of Source and Application of Capital Funds and the
tement of Continuity of Trust Funds for the year then ended.
r examination included a general review of the accounting
edures and such tests of accounting records and other suppor-
ng evidence as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
URRENT ASSETS
ash
ank certificates (at cost t
ccounts receivable
Local Taxation
Under requisition due from
ratepayers. - .. .
Supplementary levy
Other school boards
Government of Ontario
General legislative grant
Education mill rate subsidy
Other .
Government of Canada
Other
epaid expenses
e from capital
In our opinion these financial statements present fairly the
financial position of the Board as at December 31. 1974 and the
results of its operations and the source and application of its
capital funds for the year then ended, in accordance with accoun-
ting principles generally accepted for Ontario school boards.
applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.
Warren. Davis, Martindale & Barnes
Chartered Accountants
Municipal Auditor's License No. 145
London. Ontario
May 16. 1975 .
Revenue Fund Balance Sheet
ASSETS
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash
Bank certificate - at cost ...
AS AT DECEMBER 31. 1974
( with comparative figures for the previous year;
1974 1973
S 51.652
250.000
$ 1.975
700.000
139
56.158 42.430
49.448 22.934
542.753 278.385
7.592 26.681
154.169 105.206
31.334 -
14.834 26.817
26.887 32.267
23,566 30,744
$ 1,208,393 $ 1,267,578
LIABILITIES
1974 1973
Bank - indebtedness $ - $ 85.020
Accounts payable
Local Governments
Over requisition due
to ratepayers - 323.560
Other school boards . 419,071 7,180
Trade 595.711 309.127
Government of Canada - 5.191
Reserve for working funds - note 1
Capital Fund Balance Sheet
AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1974
( with comparative figures for the previous year
1974 1973
$ 249,840
_ 100,000
349,840 26,893
$ 26:893
FIXED ASSETS - at cost
Land 328.622 326,622
Buildings 16,164,904 15,547,879
Furniture and equipment 2,375,609 2,315,363
Projects in progress - note 2 5,050,260 3.812,030
Buses 83,170 66,806
Other 104,671 104,671
24,107,236 22,173,171
$24,457,076 $22,200,064
1.014.782 730.078
193.611 537,500
$ 1,208,393 $ 1,267,578
LIABILITIES
1974 1973
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Bank - indebtedness $ - $
Accounts payable 90,349
Due to revenue 23,566
LONG TERM LIABILITIES
Unmatured debenture debt
Investment in fixed assets
APPROVED BY:
GILI3ERT DAFOE
Chairman of the Board
113,915
8,184,539
16,158,622
$24,457,076
30,744
30,744
7,618,124
14,551;196
$22,200,064
J. A. GUMMOW
Director of Education
Revenue Fund Statement of Operations
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1974
( with comparative figures for the previous year)
1974
EXPENDITURE
Business administration
Instruction
Educational services
Attendance, health and food services
Plant operation
Plant maintenance
Transportation
Tuition fees
Capital expenditure - non -allocable
Other operating expenditures
Debt charges on capital borrowing
Non-operating expenditures
RECOVERIES OF EXPENDITURES
Other school boards
Government of Ontario
Tuition fees and miscellaneous
Individuals
Other revenue excluding transfers from
reserves 36.382
199,795
NET EXPENDITURE $ 7,550,380
Elementary Secondary Elementary
Schools Schools Total Schools
$ 208,730 $ 101,248 $ 309,978 $ 179,895
4,621.646 4,289,505 8,911,151 4,154,328
44,902 82,446 127,348 39,251
10,869 8,816 19,685 9,988
688,769 524,851 1,213,620 574,973
219,795 138,296 ' 358,091' 2017,641
842,863 731,909 1,574,772 753,289
5,098 1,217,815 1,222,913 2,970
435,417 499,035 934,452 177,977
10,228 3,751 13,979 22,111
652,868 457,052 1,109,920 680,273
8,990 13,290 22,280 18,153
7,750,175 8,068,014 15,818,189 6,820,849
12.490 157.930 170,420 13.749
67,837 93.697 161,534 79,630
80,433 7.596 88,029 66,942
2,653 9,722 12,375 1,881
FINANCING OF NET EXPENDITURE
Government of Ontario
General Legislative Grant $ 5.091,686
bocal Taxation
Prior year over (under) requisition -
note 3
Local taxation raised during the year
Net under (over) requisition to be
applied to subsequent year
Decrease in reserve
48,896 85,278 42,827
317,841 517,636 205,029
$ 7,750,173 315,300,553 3 6,615,820
1973
Secondary
Schools
$ 87.497
3.833.547
76.733
5,605
443,039
121.484
654,376
1.147.004
244.093
11.036
348,285
16,487
6.989.186
187.491
76.890
6,721
7,055
47,108
325,265
$ 6,663,921
Total
S 267,392
7.987,875
115,984
15,593
1.018.012
329.125
1.407.665
1,149,974
422,070
33.147
1.028.558
34,640
13,810.035
201.240
156.520
73.663
8.936
89,935
530,294
$13,279,741
$ 5.519,773 $10,611,459 $ 4.568.252 $ 4,825.478 $ 9,393,730
94,647 150,344
2,248,950 1,851,264
115,097 228,792
$ 7,550,380 $ 7,750,173
244.991 (19,616)
4,100,214 2,204,193
(1.6871 (21,303)
2.026.542 4.230,735
(137.009) (186.412) (323,421)
343,889 - -
315,300,553 $ 6,615,820 $ 6,663,921 $13,279,741
Statement of Source and Application of Capital Funds
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Unexpended funds atbeginning
of year
Capital expenditures from revenue
Debentures issued - par value
Federal sales tax rebate
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1974
(with comparative figures for the previous year)
1974
$ 6,232
1,018,840
1,155,000
15,172
2,195,244
1973 APPLICATION OF FUNDS 1974 1973
Balance at beginning ofyear not
permanently financed $ $ 1,126,104
$ - Fixed Assets:
496,105 Buildings 1,736.536 775,980
1,674.000 Furniture and equipment 175.641 226.554
34,516 School sites and improvements . 2.000
2,204,621 Buses 26.647
Other - payments on projects 14,239 69,751
Unexpended funds at end of year
1.955,063 2.198,389
-secondary 272,034 6,232
$ 2,227,097 $ 2,204,621
Balance at end of year not permanently
financed -elementary 31,853• -
$ 2,227,097 $ 2,204,621
Statement of Continuity
of Trust Funds
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1974
Balance December31, 1973
Capital
Income
Revenue -interest
Expenditure
Balance December 31, 1974
Capital
Income
$ 15,800
_ 244
16.044
1,163
1,014
15,800
393
3 16,193
Notes to Financial Statements
DECEMBER 31, 1974
1) Working Capital Reserve:
The accumulated reserve for working funds is allocated as
follows:
Elementary Panel
Secondary Panel
2) Projects in Progress:
Of the eight projects in progress, five were physically complete
but final billing and adjustments were pending. Costs included
in projects in progress for these five amounted to ... 32,992,124
31 Prior Years Over (Under) Requisition:
The prior year over (under) requisition has been restated to
($94,647 - elementary) and ($150.344 - secondary) to reflect
additional information received subsequent to the preparation
of the 1973 financial statements. The 1973 comparative figures
have not been restated however, the bulk of the changes oc-
curred in the grants received from the Province of Ontario.
$ 159.903
33,708
$ 193,611