Hansard Transcript 1986-Jul-08 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

M. Villeneuve: Je ne veux pas laisser passer, sans contester, la toute dernière déclaration injustifiée et fausse de l'ancien député libéral de Cochrane Nord, M. René Fontaine.

Lors d'une émission radiodiffusée cette semaine, intitulée Ontario Trente, l'ancien ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines a mentionné qu'il était victime de la chasse aux sorciers de mon parti et aussi, je cite: "les progressistes-conservateurs veulent être certains de faire disparaître tous les Canadiens français de la mappe", tel que dit par René Fontaine.

En tant que Franco-Ontarien, progressiste-conservateur, je suis furieux et bouleversé de la méchanceté de ce faux renseignement de l'ancien ministre M. Fontaine qui a été pris au dépourvu et essaie avec acharnement d'éviter le vrai problème, son propre comportement en tant que ministre de la Couronne.

Mon parti a une longue et honorable tradition de justice envers les Canadiens français. Je retourne a il y a 20 ans, à l'éclaircissement de l'attitude du premier ministre John Robarts envers le Québec. Probablement, plus que tout autre premier ministre provincial de cette période, il a réussi à établir une amitié et un soutien de sa province et de son gouvernement pour faire de cette province française, un partenaire bienvenu du reste du Canada.

Je suis désolé de la déclaration de Monsieur Fontaine.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Ms. Gigantes: Many members will have read in today's Globe and Mail of a judgement given by Justice Alvin Rosenberg of the Supreme Court of Ontario, which included the statement, "Other evidence establishes that Mrs. Espinosa is accepting of the beatings she has always received from Mr. Espinosa because [they are] far less severe than the beatings Mr. Espinosa's brother gives to his wife."

What a tragic statement! The words convey such appalling misery that, reading them in the Globe and Mail, I felt impelled to review the judgement and learn what led Justice Alvin Rosenberg to make such a statement. It is clear from this reading that Justice Rosenberg was not condoning the facts as they were presented to him in this civil case. He was simply noting them as facts relevant to the damage claims he was deciding. What a world of misery these facts reveal! Two women beaten and beaten and children who will sooner or later be aware that mothers are beaten.

What help do we offer? When we advertise to women that they can get assistance, what are we really offering? Transition and interval houses that do not have the funds to cope with the overwhelming needs of women and children; housing policy that does not provide a new place to live; family benefits allowances that mean abject poverty; and child care programs that do not begin to meet children's needs.

These things have to change and only we can change them.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Ferraro: On behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and the committee of parliamentary assistants for small business, I want to show the members of the House a rack we have ordered, one for each member of the House. Specifically, we are going to stock it with small business material.

Half of the new jobs in the next five years will be created by small business people and we want to make sure that each constituency office has a rack that is stocked. We will send the information to each constituency office as it progresses. There is one rack per member. We have them in stock now. If the members want to pick them up themselves, they can contact our office. Failing that, we will send one to each member's constituency office.

COMMENTAIRES D'UN ANCIEN MEMBRE

M. Guindon: Moi aussi, je veux me lever aujourd'hui pour ajouter ma déception à celle de mon collègue, le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry (M. Villeneuve).

Ce que M. Fontaine a dit à la radio, à l'émission Ontario Trente, est insultant. C'est une insulte pour tous les Canadiens français. C'est une insulte pour tous les membres de la Législature et c'est une insulte pour moi. Je suis un Canadien français, je suis un Conservateur et je suis encore ici.

Je trouve cela terrible et de mauvais goût que de dire une telle chose seulement pour se justifier lui-même, après avoir commis des fautes, parce que lui, il n'est pas capable de se justifier pour les erreurs qu'il a commises.

Je dois vous dire qu'il y en a d'autres qui sont venus ici avant lui. Il y en a d'autres qui ont été ministre du Tourisme et des Loisirs, ministre du Travail et qui avaient une entreprise familiale depuis trois générations et qui ont réussi à suivre les directives. Ils ont réussi à suivre les règlements au sujet des conflits d'intérêts. En outre, je voudrais le nommer: il s'agit de feu mon père, Fernand Guindon.

Je dois vous dire que chaque fois qu'un Canadien français commet une erreur, après cela il va s'envelopper avec le lys et le trillium. Il commet une erreur. Il aurait pu faire cette même remarque il y a 50 et 100 ans passés et cela aurait pu passer. Mais aujourd'hui, ça ne fait qu'augmenter la crise et les problèmes. Ça fait au moins 25 ans qu'on travaille pour les francophones. Ça fait plus que ça même que tous les membres de la Législature travaillent pour les francophones et dans une seule phrase, il vient nous abaisser et ça va être dur de revenir.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Martel: Several weeks ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), on my questioning him regarding asbestos in the courthouse in London, made the following statement: "I can assure the honourable member and those workers that we are going to make sure, before any stop-work orders are lifted, that the proper assessment is done."

First, I want to advise the minister that the Ministry of Government Services sent people in on July 3, exactly one week later, to commence work. The assessments were not done and the work is progressing -- is that not wonderful? -- despite stop-work orders by the ministry to the contrary.

Second, since the date I raised this matter with the minister, a young woman was fired for refusing to work in those circumstances and the Ministry of Labour refused to protect her. It is interesting to note that they have now found the asbestos is right in the ventilation system and circulates throughout the entire building. That makes it wonderful for the people working there. The ministry has now said that everyone has to have an X-ray. Imagine X-raying people one week after they have possibly ingested asbestos.

The other interesting part about this case is that the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Government Services knew of the problems there for six years. When this woman refused to work, they refused to protect her. We now find out she was right; that, in fact, the whole building is contaminated because the asbestos was in the ventilation system. I want to know when that swamp is going to be cleaned up.

TWINNING OF CITIES

Mr. Cordiano: I am pleased to announce today the twinning of the city of York and the city of l'Aquila, capital of the region of Abruzzo in central Italy. Yesterday the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I had the pleasure of meeting with a delegation from l'Aquila, including the mayor, Signor Enzo Lombardi, and the members of the municipal council of the city of York. They are here as guests of the city of York.

2:10 p.m.

L'Aquila is a beautiful hill town, famous for many things, not the least of which is its centuries-old university. It is my hope and the minister's hope that this twinning project will be the start of a truly close relationship between the people of the city of l'Aquila and the people of the city of York. In particular, in my capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, I am looking forward to the development of regular exchanges of students from the University of l'Aquila and both the University of Toronto and York University.

FORMER MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Pope: I cannot convey the shock and sadness I felt when I first learned of the comments of the former member for Cochrane North on the radio program, Ontario Trente. When asked by the interviewer if he believed he was a victim of a witch hunt by the Conservatives, Mr. Fontaine replied -- I quote from a translation -- "Yes, I certainly am. Yes, and over and above this, the Conservatives want to make sure the French Canadians disappear from the map."

There can be no excuse for that statement made by the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and now the Liberal candidate in the Cochrane North by-election. His statement is an insult to every citizen of this province, whether or not he or she is francophone, and it is an insult to every member of this Legislature regardless of political affiliation.

During the past two weeks, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has spoken a great deal about honour. There is nothing honourable about this statement. Such a comment would have been out of place in our society 100 years ago, and today it is an insult that defies understanding.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
AND RESPONSES

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am pleased to inform the House that this morning the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was in Sault Ste. Marie to announce a number of initiatives designed to help that community through its current economic difficulties.

Recognizing that the problems of Sault Ste. Marie are part of a broadly based economic restructuring that is facing resource-based industries in northern Ontario, he outlined some special actions the government will undertake across the north.

We are making a commitment to help northern Ontario become more competitive. That means strengthening and expanding the resource industries where feasible; it also means attracting new, private investment and new industries to the north.

The Premier has asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) to lead an interministerial examination of the factors affecting the north's competitive position. Several special studies will be commissioned into such matters as production costs and the incentives available to northern Ontario industry relative to those elsewhere. The scope of these studies will include matters such as energy and transportation costs, which have been cited as a problem for the north's primary industries. In addition, the government will be doing all it can to minimize government-controlled cost increases.

To increase the policy and decision-making emphasis on northern investment, growth and diversification, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will appoint an assistant deputy minister of northern industry, to be based in Sault Ste. Marie.

The Premier will chair a major conference in Saint Ste. Marie this fall. The focus of this conference will be on strategic initiatives and opportunities to support growth and change in the northern economy. We will invite major decision-makers from industry, labour, interest groups and government to attend the conference.

Second, the Premier outlined approximately $60 million worth of new or accelerated initiatives which various government ministries will undertake this year to help the Sault-Wawa region and other areas of the north. Details of these projects are included in information kits being sent to all the members.

Finally, the government will begin a decentralization process that will see 360 jobs moved to Sault Ste. Marie. These include the forest resources group of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Lottery Corp. Also, a new forensic laboratory of the Ministry of the Solicitor General is to be established in the region.

Mr. Bernier: I am pleased to respond to the statement by the Treasurer about the press release and the trip to northern Ontario by the Premier. I welcome him to northern Ontario and hope he will go there on more occasions.

I also hope we will have more by-elections in northern Ontario because here we see, holus bolus, a grab-bag of recycled announcements sprinkled with a little new money; this is money literally thrown at some of the problems of northern Ontario, which is a crass way to win votes in Cochrane North.

I say to the Treasurer that the government has to earn its right in northern Ontario; it cannot buy it with these kinds of statements. It is by constant concern expressed over a period of time that the government will earn the right to have a representative in northern Ontario.

I have to say to the New Democratic Party and indeed to the critics from this party that we have had some impact for a year now, but it is obvious from this statement that there has been a minor impact on the government's concerns for northern Ontario. We are always grateful for small things in northern Ontario, and this is part of the process.

I am sure the Premier will agree with me that many of the announcements included in the Treasurer's package are recycled, previously announced statements. I notice the Treasurer increased the funding for the northern development fund from $3 million this year to $17 million, and now it is up to $35 million. In a three-year period, he will still not reach the $60 million he originally promised.

Mr. Harris: That is right. A broken promise again.

Mr. Bernier: Broken promises for northern Ontario.

A year ago, the Treasurer talked about all the things his party was going to do. It has had 42 years to think about the new initiatives it would bring to northern Ontario. I can recall a few of them. The Treasurer touted the tax rebate across northern Ontario as being the sacred cow of the Liberal Party. There is no mention of that in this statement on the north. He was going to equalize the price of gasoline and milk right across this province. There is no mention of that. He tried to suck in the voters in the last election with those statements, but he found out they are all folly and he has gone in a different direction.

The Treasurer has gone in the direction upon which the former administration was embarked. Many of the things in this statement were part of our package. The waterfront at Sault Ste. Marie was already in the Board of Internal Leadership and Development program. He has added to that because it was a successful program. He has also added more money for municipal roads, something we were doing. He just chopped that up and tossed it out.

This is a step in the right direction; there is no question about that. As I said earlier, northerners are always grateful for any attention or goodies that come their way. It is a little crass, however, to go to Sault Ste. Marie on the eve of a by-election. What about the rest of northern Ontario? I do not see anything here for Moosonee, very little for the ridings of Kenora or Rainy River, a little bit for Thunder Bay. It is so crass that it zeroes in on Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie in the hope that it will spill off into the Cochrane North by-election to be held on August 14.

It is a very crass statement; nevertheless, we welcome the thrust. At least some attention is being paid to the efforts of the opposition parties. I have to say that with a little bit of sincerity. The Treasurer has heeded some of our concerns and is moving in the right direction. We hope this initiative is only a small start, because there is much more to do. There are a number of important studies, but I hope the Treasurer will not spend too much time on the studies that have been announced in this statement. There are four or five major studies on northern Ontario, containing 290 recommendations. We do not need any more studies. The government should cancel all those studies. I speak to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) as the powerhouse in that government, and I am sure he agrees with me.

In closing, this is a holus-bolus, grab-bag, desperation shot on the eve of a by-election.

Nevertheless, we welcome the new initiatives. While they are small in comparison to what they should be, we will accept them, as all northerners do, in a good spirit.

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statement made by the Treasurer today as well as the myriad speeches that were given in Sault Ste. Marie this morning.

The government's vision is a curious amalgam of what I call traditional pump-priming, in the sense of accelerating public works projects and doing some other things that have needed to be done for a long time. I take nothing away from the fact that the government has decided to invest some additional moneys in the Sault and to accelerate some public sector investment, but that in itself is hardly a vision.

What is curious about the amalgamation is that the Premier on page 10 of his speech says, "We also have to begin now to solve the deeper, more structural problems we must face down over the next few years," to which statement none of us can hardly object. However, the chemistry that the Premier puts forward for dealing with those structural problems is nothing more or less than Thatcherism pure and simple.

The Premier's answer to the problems facing the northern economy is: "I want the north to compete fiercely for investment dollars. I know we can make that possible only by offering investors an economic environment that provides attractive returns."

This is a government so bereft of vision that it has failed to understand that, while a partnership with the private sector is going to be necessary, it is an absurdity to think the private sector and free market alone are going to provide the answer to the problems facing the northern economy. This, in part, has caused the problems in the northern economy. It is nothing short of a travesty to suggest that holding a conference and giving the companies everything they want and giving in to what the companies want is going to provide the answer.

That is not a vision for the future; that is a mirror image of the past. If the Premier or the Liberal Party thinks that is going to create long-term jobs in northern Ontario, both are sadly mistaken. It is a vision that most northerners will reject because they know it for the emptiness it is.

Mr. Wildman: In response to the statement by the Treasurer today, I must say it is encouraging that the government has responded in some way to some of the recommendations of the standing committee on resources development for Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa and to a couple of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, the so-called Rosehart report. I am disappointed, though, that there is no specific response to the Rosehart report, no detailed response to the 80 or so recommendations made by that committee. I am also disappointed that the Premier, on being questioned at the press conference today, specifically said no to the possibility of a medical school for northern Ontario or to improved health care training facilities in the north.

This announcement encourages more mineral explorations in the Wawa-Timmins area and more tourism in the north, which has already been announced, and commits the government to ministry decentralization into northern Ontario. In relation to the statement by the Treasurer today, in which he pointed out that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology will set up in that area an assistant deputy minister to lead in development of the north, he does not point out, as did his colleague the minister this morning in the Sault, that the main job of this new assistant deputy minister for northern industry will be to study the studies already done in the north.

One of the things the government is going to be doing is appointing Mr. Rosehart to study the recommendations made by his own committee. We have had enough studies. It is about time for government action to deal with the structural problems in the north. I am tired of study. When are we going to see this government actually do something instead of continuing to act the way the previous government did, giving consultants more and more jobs to study the problems of the north?

2:24 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Villeneuve: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will address this question to the Treasurer. If the Treasurer was listening to the members' statements, he will be aware of the accusations made yesterday by the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the current Liberal candidate in the Cochrane North by-election, Mr. Fontaine. I will repeat these accusations for the Treasurer's benefit. Asked on the radio show Ontario Trente yesterday whether he was the victim of a witchhunt by the Conservatives, the Liberal candidate replied: "Yes, I certainly am. Yes, and over and above this, the Conservatives want to make sure the French-Canadians disappear from the map."

I find this statement to be an affront, not only to the members of this party, but to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every member of this Legislature. Does the Treasurer agree and concur with what his former colleague has said?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In quoting what was on a radio program or a television program, the honourable member apparently is representing in this House what René Fontaine said in response to a question. I have no doubt that is what Mr. Fontaine believes. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Fontaine is quite capable of speaking for himself and he does so.

Mr. Guindon: On behalf of francophones and all members of this party and the Legislature, I ask the Treasurer publicly to dissociate himself, his government and his party from the remarks made by the former member and present candidate for Cochrane North and to request that the candidate publicly withdraw his statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Fontaine has indicated publicly that he intends to be the Liberal candidate in that area. What he says on matters of policy is his responsibility. He has not been nominated. I fully expect he will be and that he will be elected.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the government House leader that this is not a statement of policy. Mr. Fontaine was not speaking about northern development or, Lord knows, grants to mining companies. He was talking about his belief that the Progressive Conservative Party "wants to make sure the French Canadians disappear from the map."

Last week the Premier told us long and often that it was a matter of honour, that the former member had acted out of honour and had honoured himself and his colleagues by doing "the honourable thing in resigning from this House." Will the Treasurer now do the honourable thing and clearly and unequivocally dissociate himself from the remarks of someone his leader intends to reappoint to the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Fontaine made the statement, speaking as an individual partaking in the democratic process of a by-election campaign. He is seeking the Liberal nomination. I expect he will win the nomination and return to this House. I am not in a position to speak for him and I do not intend to try.

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the government House leader on the same issue. We are not asking him to speak for Mr. Fontaine; we are asking him as the House leader for the government, in the absence of the Premier, to speak for himself and tell us whether the government, the Premier, or he as the government House leader, approves of those remarks or whether he dissociates himself from those remarks.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not heard Mr. Fontaine's comments. The member who asked the question realizes that it is up to the electorate to return those people whom they select. There has never been a period of time in the 25 years I have been in this House that we have not been well represented by the francophone community across this province. I fully expect that will continue, whether the French-speaking and bilingual members represent the New Democratic Party members, the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals.

2:30 p.m.

It appears from statements made by the two opposition parties that in this instance there will be only a Liberal candidate. I guess it is fair to say we expect him to be re-elected.

Mr. Grossman: The government House leader, in refusing to dissociate himself from these outrageous comments, introduces yet a new standard for the Ontario Liberal Party. This past week, his leader tried to make the point that if the voters of Cochrane North re-elect Mr. Fontaine, somehow he will not have committed any indiscretion in the financial disclosures. The government House leader took the position a moment ago that the voters of Cochrane North, by voting for Mr. Fontaine in an uncontested election campaign, can somehow certify these remarks. I do not believe the voters of Cochrane North will associate themselves, regardless of the outcome of that election, with those specific comments.

My question to the government House leader is a very simple one. Regardless of what happens in Cochrane North and regardless of what Mr. Fontaine says or does between now and the election, does the government House leader agree that someone who says something scandalously outrageous such as that ought to be sitting in the cabinet of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not my prerogative to name the cabinet. The Premier has made clear his position on that matter, and it was reported in the press as recently as today. There is no doubt in my mind that the meaning of Mr. Fontaine's words was not perhaps as terminal as the honourable Leader of the Opposition would consider it. It is Mr. Fontaine's view that the initiative of the Progressive Conservative Party drove him out of his office and out of his seat. There is no doubt about that. Everybody must surely understand his sensitivity in an important matter such as that.

Mr. Grossman: I want to urge this upon the government House leader. We obviously understand his need to try to support, sustain and get re-elected a political comrade. We have also seen in this House instances where political parties, and particularly the leadership of political parties, have been able to separate their desire to get a colleague re-elected from the need to establish throughout the province a code of conduct and a message of decency and tolerance on issues that are related to ancestry, racial origin and a common sense of decency.

Will the government House leader, in the absence of the Premier, dissociate himself totally and completely from the remarks of Mr. Fontaine? Will he dissociate himself or will he not?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is my expectation that there will always be ample and competent francophone representation in this House from the various communities of Ontario. I feel sure that is going to happen in Cochrane North as it has happened in the past. The democratic process is open to the two opposition parties to participate in as they see fit. It is not for me to pass judgement on any of my colleagues who state their views in an election campaign.

If the honourable member feels affronted that Mr. Fontaine is sensitive at having been attacked by a private investigator and at this material having been brought forward, I cannot help it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) control themselves?

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Treasurer. First, I want to congratulate him for his Erik Nielsen imitation, and just hope he bears in mind what happens when that happens.

Before the Velcro proceeds to his brain, my question is with respect to the Rosehart report and the speech that was made this morning in Saint Ste. Marie. I have some very substantive questions about northern development. Can the Treasurer explain why the speech of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) today contained no reference to a permanent fund to be managed by northerners, no reference to resource planning agreements, no reference to gasoline prices, no reference to a forestry institute, a mining foundation or a northern technology centre, no reference to a medical school, which I understand he completely ruled out, no reference to community adjustment funds and no reference to extended notice of plant closures? Can he explain why the government has not responded to the substantive structural recommendations made by the Rosehart committee?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: First, the announcements of government policy dealing with northern development are not yet complete. As Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Premier intends to travel to a number of communities in the north during the next few weeks and indicate government policy as it is announced in those communities. I say to my friend, do not give up; there is more good stuff to come.

As for Dr. Rosehart's recommendations, I thought it was an excellent report. The members of cabinet have perused it, and I know members of the opposition parties have examined it carefully. The northern development fund is being speeded up by way of cash flows so its usefulness will be more immediate.

Before the Speaker brings the curtain down on me as far as time is concerned, I bring to the member's attention that this announcement has $60 million worth of initiatives in the Sault-Wawa area and transfers 360 jobs from the central government in the Toronto area to northern Ontario.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the Premier will be dropping goodies in various announcements, but that is not what I had in mind. It may be the Liberal strategy, but it was thoroughly discredited when it was tried for 42 years. It has clearly been rejected in the north. I am surprised the Treasurer would think that is the route to go in northern economic development in the future.

Having relied on the lottery of private investment, it seems the government now is relying on the Ontario Lottery Corp. to solve the problems of northern development.

Can the Treasurer tell us whether the government has accepted or rejected the recommendations dealing with a permanent fund to be managed by northerners? I am speaking not of the old northern development fund but of a new fund, a capital fund that would be controlled and managed by northerners, the northern fund that was recommended in the Rosehart report and has been talked about widely and has been contained in private members' bills introduced by my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and many others. Has the government accepted or rejected that recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All the recommendations in the Rosehart report are under consideration; some have been accepted and already announced. It is difficult for me, as Treasurer, to determine the concerns of the opposition critics. On the one hand they feel too much money is being thrown at the north -- those were the words used by the former Minister of Northern Affairs -- and the leader of the New Democratic Party has somehow considered the Premier should not go to the north and make these announcements. That does not sound reasonable to me at all.

I believe it is very proper that the Premier, together with his senior ministers, should be in northern Ontario to make these announcements. That some people are cynical enough to associate this with an uncontested by-election indicates how bankrupt their views are.

Mr. Martel: The Treasurer reminds me of another House leader called Erik.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: It is clear the Velcro has extended at least to the Treasurer's ears, because what he has ascribed to our party is by no means what I have said today and it is not what any of our spokesmen have said on a number of occasions.

Can he specifically tell us whether the government has accepted or rejected the recommendations on gasoline prices and a medical school for northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought the medical school matter was still under consideration. I was not present at the press conference in the Sault to hear the statement of the Premier. I can only take an indication from the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who is a little more rational in his approach to this matter than his leader is, that the medical school has been rejected. I am surprised that is the case, but if the Premier has rejected it, the answer is yes. My own view and understanding of this was that all these matters were under continuing consideration.

The matter of gasoline pricing is being reviewed by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), who is in northern Ontario at this moment accepting the views of northerners and giving them additional consideration on this important matter.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer's pathetic attempt at flattery of the member for Algoma will get him nowhere.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It might get that member back in the third row though.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the apparent explosion of doctors now attempting to find a way to impose extra charges in the health care system by means of so-called administrative fees. I have given the minister copies of two form letters that have been distributed by two doctors to their patients, establishing very extensive fees, including a $3 minimum fee for syringes and bandage materials, a minimum fee of $5 for telephone prescription renewals and so forth. Is this emergence of tin-cup medicine something the government favours? If not, what does the government intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The issue of extra charges, in terms of administrative charges being levied for uninsured services, has been with us for some time. It predates the introduction and passage of Bill 94. It is the subject matter of an item with respect to information submitted to the profession by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I can tell the honourable gentleman I am concerned about it and have taken steps to meet with the college to inquire about the situation with respect to any increasing emphasis on these administrative charges, as the member has just set out here.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that the long-standing policy of the government with respect to food has been that it would not allow the use of credit cards. There have been meetings between the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the large food chains with respect to the use of credit cards for the purchase of food for the simple reason that it is the view of the government that people should not be forced to go into debt to buy the necessities of life.

I wonder whether the minister can tell us what he intends to do about what is an explosion in the number of doctors who are being encouraged by the Ontario Medical Association, as matter of OMA policy, to levy these administrative charges and to make them accessible through Chargex and Visa? What is the minister's answer to the question, "Will that be OHIP or Chargex?" Does he not think it is time the government started covering things through the Ontario health insurance plan and stopped forcing people into debt to get medical care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman I have taken this series of reports with respect to items that are being charged for noninsured services with some concern because I want to see what is happening. It is my indication that some of these items are occurring, and we are keeping a very close eye on what is occurring between patients and physicians. With that in mind, I have already contacted the college and indicated my desire to set up an appointment with the registrar to deal specifically with the concerns.

I request the members of the House to provide me with the information, as the honourable gentleman has done with respect to two physicians, about the types of charges that are being requested and required of patients as well as with respect to what demands are being made of the patients in relation to these types of letters in terms of the services being provided by physicians. If I can have the assistance of the members, it will help me when I meet with the college.

Mr. Rae: With respect to abortions, the minister knows it has already been more than customary for women to have to pay in advance before a doctor in a public hospital will agree to perform an abortion. This has already been clearly established in many instances. A great many women are reluctant to come forward to complain. What steps does the government intend to take to make sure women are not being forced to pay up front and are not being denied access to abortion services because of this perpetuation of cash, tin-cup medicine when it comes to services that are deemed to be medically necessary?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sure the member is aware that the Ministry of Health and the minister's office have initiated studies with respect to questions surrounding accessibility to abortion services. We have enlisted the support of a practitioner in the field to make inquiries about the manner in which we can deal specifically with questions that have caused difficulties relating to access. That matter is one of the items that will be discussed among the various people with whom she consults, and I will deal with the matter when she comes back to me. There is every concern with respect to ensuring that medically necessary procedures provided for under the OHIP schedule of benefits are made available to the people of the province without extra charges.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Grossman: My question is on the very same issue; that is, on abortions. It is to the Attorney General and/or minister responsible for women's issues in that we would not like this question referred. On June 24, just a couple of weeks ago, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) denied that he and his government had anything to do with the laying of charges against the Morgentaler Clinic and said there was nothing they could do to lay charges. Is that a correct interpretation of the Attorney General's role and influence over the state of affairs with regard to abortion clinics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I have indicated to the House before, the Metropolitan Toronto Police have authority to conduct an investigation into the Harbord Street premises or the new premises, which I believe are on Gerrard Street. When they complete that investigation, the process is for them to attend before a crown attorney to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the laying of a charge. I am advised that this process is not complete as yet and that they have not attended before a crown attorney.

Mr. Grossman: I want to read for the Attorney General the earlier remarks of the Premier on May 13, 1986. In response to questions about the Morgentaler Clinic and the Gerrard Street operation, the Premier said: "We will prosecute this under the law. We will use the power of the law not to allow free-standing abortion clinics." Again, "We will use the power of the law not to allow free-standing abortion clinics to exist." Those are the words of the Premier. If the Attorney General attempted a moment ago to give the impression that he and the Premier have no influence whatsoever over the laying of these charges, will he so indicate now so that we will know the Premier's earlier comments were totally irrelevant and misleading?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is always the honourable member's desire to present two alternatives, neither of which is savoury, and ask one to select one of them. The reality lies somewhere entirely different. We have made it plain that as long as the federal law, which is within the custody of the Conservative Party of Canada at the moment, remains unchanged, we propose to authorize and have authorized, when required, the police to conduct an investigation. That investigation is not complete. When it is complete, we will have a statement to make on that subject.

2:50 p.m.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Treasurer in relation to his statement and the announcements made in Sault Ste. Marie today. I refer him to pages 10 and 11 in the speech of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in which he points out that it is time to start solving the structural problems in northern Ontario's economy, to make northern Ontario more competitive, to diversify the economy and to make the north less dependent on volatile commodity prices and cyclically sensitive industries.

I refer him also to the statement by his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) in which he pointed out the same thing. On page 3 of his statement, he pointed out that he will be setting up an assistant deputy minister for northern industries in the Sault, who will study the existing studies and recommendations on the north.

Can the Treasurer explain how studying existing studies and commissioning new studies will actually do anything about the structural problems of the northern economy and make us less dependent on cyclically sensitive industries and commodity prices?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am concerned that the member may pass on to his constituents, who have a great deal of respect for his opinion, that this new assistant deputy minister will be doing nothing but studying studies. I can assure him that is not the case.

It simply means the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is going to be represented in the north by an assistant deputy minister who will be able to assist and expedite northern Ontario development and other emanations of government and agencies that have the responsibility for decision-making in the north.

It will be a tremendous advantage for the people in the Sault-Wawa area to have a senior official established in the north to give that kind of leadership and the kind of assistance and service the area needed in the past.

Mr. Wildman: I do not know quite how to react to being accused by the Treasurer of being rational and having a lot of respect in Algoma. Ignoring that, can the minister please explain what in any of these statements, by the Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) or the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), actually deals with the structural problems of the north? We have had responses to the reports in specifics, and we have had money dropped into the area, but what deals with the major structural problems?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Essentially, I think the response to the Rosehart committee and to the recommendations of the standing committee on resources development that we move either ministries or segments of ministries to the north is the most valuable announcement today.

I am glad we have an assistant deputy minister locating there. I am also glad $60 million has been allocated and announced by the Premier for the Sault-Wawa area.

Miss Stephenson: It is not all for the Sault and Wawa.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, it is.

Miss Stephenson: No, it is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: All right. Just from my point of view, the idea of decentralizing the business of government, particularly for those agencies that deal with the forest industry and with northern affairs in general, has to be valuable and will have a long-term effect on the economic structure of that community.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes). I am sorry; the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan).

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: I will wait until the other side cools down. It is their time; if they want to continue, that is fine.

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS

Mr. Callahan: I want to direct my question to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Brampton is very active in the arts, and after the inactivity in funding in the past by the previous Conservative government, I have received word from a few of my constituents that a program has been instituted. I want to inquire of the minister whether a program has been instituted and the details of that program.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I thank the member for his question. Many of our programs are aimed at the needs of smaller communities. The last program we instituted, called Investment in the Arts, is placing $10 million in three years to give communities the opportunity to have their arts organizations get more support from the business and corporate sector.

There is an information program currently in existence, and we will be travelling to the member's region. I will give him the information on when those visits will occur. If an arts institution can show us proof over a base level that it is able to get business and corporations showing an interest and giving donations, we will match that funding dollar for dollar. We will also match new business organizations that have not given money in the past four years two to one.

Mr. Callahan: Peel region is currently refurbishing its 125-year-old jail as the Peel regional art gallery. I want to ask the minister whether any funds will be made available for that.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am more than happy to receive comments from any of the members in this Legislature, as everyone knows. I will take a look at that question, and perhaps we can get together after question period.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. The survival of a world-class in vitro fertilization unit at the Toronto General Hospital is at stake. The minister's obstinacy about Bill 94 means that both the clinical success and the research that is going on at this clinic may be lost. What is he going to do about his commitment to health care accessibility?

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the honourable member is speaking specifically about the program at the Toronto General, I can tell him it was funded on the same basis as the other programs at hospitals that have similar programs. It was decided in April that the procedures would be covered under global budgets provided to the hospitals. Laboratory tests and other items involved in making the substantial progress in this area of health care available to the people of the province are covered under the global budgets.

I do not know whether the member is referring to an article that appeared in the press as to how many secretarial staff or whatever each individual position might have, but the bulk of the costs in this procedure are covered under the global budget that was worked out in April 1986.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister knows skilled physicians cannot continue to sacrifice their time and their livelihoods to perform procedures in these clinics for which they are reimbursed at well below a realistic value. Health care is the minister's job, and Bill 94 has slammed the door shut on this service. What answer can the minister give the hundreds of couples who are waiting on lists across this province for access to in vitro clinics? Can he offer them any hope at all?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In fact, hope was offered to them because we decided we would fund the procedures. The most expensive portion of the procedure was the large amount of laboratory work and time required to do the work for in vitro fertilization. We have offered them hope and we have continued to provide them access to the in vitro fertilization program. We continue to offer that hope with respect to amounts of money referred to under the schedule of benefits or whatever can be billed by a physician. Those items are established under joint workings of the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association in setting tariff items or whatever.

I will be pleased to look at any item the member may wish to bring forward, but the bulk of the expenses with respect to the in vitro fertilization procedure is related to services provided inside those hospitals and provided for out of the global budgets. If the honourable member wants information about research, off the top of my head, we fund a couple of very important pieces of information about reproductive immunology, in particular information about what will be needed so that we can make the program perform better in Ontario. I think we have done a very good job making this program available to the people of Ontario.

PRISON FACILITIES

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. A week ago, I visited the young offenders' unit at the Vanier Centre for Women. I was shocked to find 45 young people aged 16 to 18 housed in a prison cottage designed for 24 inmates. This means double-bunking in all rooms and a common room and eating facilities planned for half the population. While I know the minister and the Vanier centre staff are trying to cope with this unfortunate situation as best they can, will the minister tell us what plans he has for ending this overcrowding as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We have very elaborate plans for ending the overcrowding. Had the newspaper article written a week ago carried the story we gave to the reporter, that would have been made known. This afternoon we will be reviewing again in committee the entire plan of young offenders' facilities. We are then sending it on to Management Board, as we did with our original corporate plan. It gives the full details of the facilities to be acquired from other ministries, the renovations to be done and the opportunity to provide adequate housing for all those in our care.

Ms. Bryden: The minister has not told us his timetable for overcoming this overcrowding. I had an opportunity to discuss the conditions at Vanier at a house meeting of inmates and staff. While both inmates and staff did question some of the statements in the Toronto Star article to which the minister refers, they did agree there was a need for more opportunities for exercise, a quiet room for reading, other than a locked cell with a roommate, and a games room. Some also wanted a nonsmoking common room. Will the minister consider changes in the facility and rules which will meet these concerns immediately and look at his long-term plans?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We are always prepared to look at anything. In fact, we have just accepted an offer from a church. It is giving us a free chapel, a very fine portable unit, that we are going to establish on the grounds of Vanier. It could meet some of those conditions. As far as the timetable with regard to our renovations and other acquisitions is concerned, we have set that they are to be done in 1986. It will be dependent upon the approval of Management Board and cabinet to make the funds available.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yesterday the member for Bellwoods raised in the House the case of two nurses who allegedly were improperly discharged from the Workers' Compensation Board's rehabilitation centre in Downsview. The information I have is as follows: The two nurses were both admitted in late May. They had been off work for some time. They received full examinations, including examinations by a senior orthopaedic consultant, during their stay. All examinations and X-rays showed negative, showed no residual problems and showed they could be discharged and returned to full duty.

The discharge procedure commenced. At that point, they attempted to get in touch with the nurses but were unable to do so. The nurses were not staying in the hospital. When the nurses were finally located, they refused, when offered, the opportunity to be involved with the attending physician on discharge. In short, the discharge had nothing to do with the leafletting the nurses carried out. Indeed, the discharge procedure had already commenced when the leafletting took place.

Mr. McClellan: If I may put it charitably, the minister's information is radically different from the information that has been provided to me by the counsel for the two nurses. Since we have this major disagreement on the basic facts of the case, perhaps the easiest solution is to ask the minister to make sure that the full file on the two nurses is provided to their legal counsel. I can provide the minister with the name of the legal counsel. Then we can actually see who is telling the truth here.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I already have the name of the counsel, who received a letter from Dr. Elgie dated in late June. If there are matters at variance, I am sure they can be looked into.

I have discussed this matter at some length with individuals who were there and I am quite satisfied the matter is as I reported it to the member and to the House.

Mr. McClellan: Are you refusing to release the file?

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The people of Uxbridge and its hospital board hold the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) responsible for the loss of obstetrics at the Cottage Hospital. What will the minister do to return this service to this growing community?

Hon. Mr. Elston: When this item was raised last week in a question to the Premier, I had already spoken with the chairman of the board there, and certain suggestions were being made with respect to what might be done to assist in re-establishing a specialist in the area. It should have been noted that by that time at least two deliveries had been made since the particular specialist had made a decision not to drive into the area to review special cases. As I understand, at the moment there is a referral of those obstetrical cases to the hospital in which the specialist himself does most of his work. I have had conversations with the chairman of the board and I am looking into some of the suggestions he has made to me.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the minister give the Cottage Hospital funding for an honorarium for a chief of the obstetrics department so that women of child-bearing age can have their children in their local hospital once again?

Hon. Mr. Elston: On the question of making arrangements with respect to practitioners wanting to work out of facilities, these are always received by me with a review of the willingness of the board to respond to those needs as well. If the board wishes to put a particular proposal to me with that in mind, to provide a salary for a particular person to become chief or whatever, I am willing to consider that.

As the honourable member knows, the hospitals themselves make decisions with respect to how they allocate their global budget dollars. When they come to me with proposals that they wish to make a certain allocation of money towards certain programs, I am willing to receive their advice and information. The chairman of the board has been very helpful in advising me with respect to some of the thoughts he has had in discussing matters informally with other members of the community. However, I have not received any formal requests, nor have I spoken to the specialist with respect to whom the arrangement might be undertaken, to see whether he wishes to receive a salary on that basis.

3:10 p.m.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As part of the government's assured housing policy, the minister sent a nice letter to local committees of adjustment and to the Ontario Municipal Board asking both bodies to consider the provision of affordable rental housing in Ontario when considering applications for the severance and private sale of row rental housing.

The minister is aware that on June 27 the Ottawa committee of adjustment told the minister, in its judgement, severance for nine units in the Carlington Park area should go ahead, that he did not have the right policy and that he should be amending the Planning Act.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that we can continue to have affordable rental row housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member is quite right. The Ottawa committee of adjustment turned down my request. I had written to every committee of adjustment in this province asking them to consider, to protect the rental housing stock. However, the city of Ottawa committee of adjustment chose to disagree with me for a number of reasons. At present; I have the option of referring the matter to the OMB, but the ministry and I are committed to protecting the rental housing stock.

Ms. Gigantes: How is the minister committed? Does he mean he is appealing this case to the OMB? What is he going to do to ensure that the 24 units which likely will be severed by the Ottawa committee of adjustment next week will not be severed?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have no definite guarantee. I am sure the honourable member is not expecting me to give her a guarantee today. I am sure of that. I must restate my commitment to rental stock. Until Bill 11 is accepted in this House, my only recourse is through the OMB, but my commitment is still there.

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS LEGISLATION

Mr. Callahan: My question is directed to the Attorney General, who introduced a statement into this House which is of considerable importance to me and my constituents. He indicated there would be --

Mr. Martel: The member will get into the cabinet that way. Just keep hammering.

Mr. Andrewes: The designated ham from the back row.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member take his seat and we will wait until --

Mr. Gillies: Come on, guys.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: Some time ago, the Attorney General introduced in this House a statement that citizens' complaints boards would be set up in municipalities on a local option basis. First, does the Attorney General anticipate that enabling legislation will be available this session and, when it is available, what will be the structure of the anticipated boards?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am embarrassed to tell the honourable member that the bill was introduced about a week ago. The structure that is contemplated by the bill, as the statement in support of it revealed, is that municipalities wishing to avail themselves of a complete police complaint mechanism can opt in by resolution of their municipal councils and with the approval of the executive council.

Mr. Callahan: I congratulate the Attorney General on being so swift in introducing the bill. By way of supplementary, does the Attorney General consider there would be any difficulty in the case of regional councils, if that is the body to which it is to be directed, in terms of their members sitting on that commission in the light of the fact that most regional councils are the employers of the police departments and pay their salaries?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The provisions of the proposed act state that the municipality in charge of police administration in the municipality will be the one that will pass the resolution required to opt in. If the regional municipality is in charge of police administration, as is the case in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, that will be the municipality that will opt in.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Mississauga East.

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: I know it is a refreshing change and deserves applause after the remarks of the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan).

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Gregory: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It has been more than five months since negotiations began to dispose of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. The delay clearly indicates that one of the two parties involved is totally dissatisfied. Can the minister tell the House how many contracts UTDC has secured since that time?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not believe that either party is dissatisfied since I indicated clearly and often in this House that it is a very complicated organization. I assure the honourable member that we are attempting to maintain all the principles that were very clearly established by the Premier and by me a number of times, when being questioned in the House. The business is going on. We are very close to signing certain deals. The member is aware of the expansion in British Columbia. He was there to see the system. We are very close to a deal with the state of Florida at present.

Mr. Gregory: To assist the minister, he has not completed any deals. He lost one in New York to another company as recently as two weeks ago because of his diddling around. I do not know how long he will be diddling around with this thing. It is becoming very evident that the Liberal government possesses neither the skill nor the expertise necessary to negotiate a sale of this magnitude.

This repeated mishandling of the sale of UTDC has produced major difficulties and serious financial losses for the corporation. Can the minister confirm this is indeed the case and, if so, is it also true that Lavalin is now offering a considerably lower price than that announced by the minister some months ago?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The fact that the order in New York was not secured had nothing to do with the sale. It was the simple fact that of four bidders, UTDC happened to be the second lowest. It was straight economics in the city of New York.

As stated by Mr. Foley, the president, who was appointed some time ago by the Progressive Conservative government, the most critical loss to UTDC was the cancellation of the GO advanced light rail transit system.

CONTROL ORDERS

Mrs. Grier: In recent weeks, the Minister of the Environment has received considerable support for his announcement of a program designed to improve water quality. It appears that the way in which the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement works is the same way the old system works. The minister has the discretion either to lay charges for violations of the law or to work out a control order.

Can the minister explain how his control orders, negotiated privately between the company and the ministry, will be any more effective than the control orders of the past that were used, or misused, to delay cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I cannot speak for the control orders of the past because they were negotiated perhaps in a different procedure. In negotiating control orders, we have a new open process so that the public has an opportunity to make representations. There have been a number of circumstances where a notice has been put in the paper; an initial meeting has been held where people can come and hear what is proposed and make known their views; and then, taking into account the viewpoints of the public and the person or company to be controlled, a final control order is brought forward for comment by environmental groups, the general public, the company and so on. After that the control order is finalized.

With the type of public input and sensitivity to environmental issues that exists today, we feel the concerns the member justifiably expressed about past experiences will dissipate.

3:20 p.m.

Mrs. Grier: Regardless of the way in which the control order is negotiated, I am sure the minister will agree that once the control order has been finalized, it gives the companies immunity from prosecution. It can be extended for years without significant progress towards cleanup. We have seen that in the case of many pulp and paper companies. Once the standards are set and become law, why will the minister not automatically lay charges and prosecute for violations of that law instead of shielding the companies by allowing the use of control orders?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The honourable member will be aware that it is not the intention of this minister or this government to shelter anyone who is in violation of the environmental laws of Ontario. The control order system can be very effective, as can prosecution. The member will recognize that, as always, the ministry wants to choose those tools which will be most effective in protecting the environment. When we feel the best tool is prosecution, for instance, when there is a violation of a law, our investigation and enforcement branch goes into action and proposes charges where there is sufficient evidence. The member will note that often, as a result of the new penalties package, as part of the penalty the Ministry of the Environment may suggest to a judge remedial action to ensure that the violation does not reoccur or that there is sufficient mitigation of the damage.

We will use the most effective manner of protecting the environment in this province.

RELEASE OF REPORT

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He has had the report of the Agricultural Council of Ontario for some months and a summary well prior to that. When will he make that report available to other people in the agricultural industry in this province?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I received a final copy of the report about a week and a half ago. The report is currently before my staff, who will be reporting to me on the recommendations found within it. We will also meet with the farm organizations, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers' Union, to discuss the report with them, following which we will make it available.

If the House is still sitting, I will make it available in the House. If it is not sitting when I am ready to make it available, the report will be made available to the news media.

Mr. Stevenson: It is quite common knowledge on the street that the minister has had this report, or something very close to the final report, for about three months now. Why has he made no statement to the agricultural industry in that time?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We received an interim report some time ago, but it did not have recommendations. The final report, which has recommendations, was not given to me until about a week and a half ago. My staff are currently reviewing it and will be reporting to me. We will talk it over with the farm organizations, and I will be making it available to the public.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In the case of the courthouse in Middlesex, if the young woman who was dismissed had been advised by the Ministry of Labour that she did not have a case; if, as we now suspect, the asbestos was in the ventilation system; and if the ministry knew about the asbestos in that building for six years, why should anyone believe the Ministry of Labour is sincere when it makes announcements that the work place is safe when we find out all these facts? How can we believe what is going on in that case in London?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Very briefly, the honourable member will want to acknowledge it has been well known by us, by the workers and by the Ministry of Government Services that there has been asbestos in the building for the past six years. That is very clear. It was indicated that if there was any attempt made to disturb the asbestos, at that point a control program would need to be put into place.

I have only recently learned of the dismissal of the worker. I understand the ministry has taken special action to alert her of her rights. The dismissal followed a finding that the situation in her case was not likely to endanger. I have already begun to make inquiries based on the member's statement today that the asbestos is in the ventilation system and I will be making those inquiries as quickly as I can.

BASEBALL GAME

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: There is a conspiracy of silence in the press gallery today. Last night on the playing field of the University of Toronto, the forces of goodness and truth defeated the press gallery soundly in a game of softball and not one word has been carried in the media all day long.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the point of information.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Bernier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On May 22, I placed a question in Orders and Notices. On June 30, I had a response from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that the response would be tabled by June 30. It is now July 8 and I still have not received a response. What are the rules and regulations of the House with respect to getting questions answered that are placed in Orders and Notices?

Mr. Speaker: I believe you outlined very closely what the rules are. They are in the standing orders. They are to be placed in Orders and Notices and the minister has the opportunity to respond. If he cannot respond then, he can advise you when he can. I am sure the minister heard your point of order.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition signed by a number of people from my riding. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As members of the St. Mary's Catholic Women's League in Brampton, we would like to declare our support of Bill 30 as presented in the Legislature in July 1985, including the stipulation to hire for the next 10 years public secondary school teachers displaced due to the completion of the Catholic system.

"We are not, however, in agreement with certain amendments being considered in the Legislature at the present time with regard to hiring procedures, exemption from religious studies and accommodation problems. We would urgently request the government to consider our view that these amendments would have a detrimental effect on Catholic education."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition from the employees of Zehrs Markets in Blenheim, Tilbury and in Blenheim. There are some 43 names protesting the idea of beer in grocery stores.

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition from Loblaws grocery department, 1360-2nd Street, Cornwall, Ontario, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you as our elected representative to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store.

"This practice would discriminate against our customers who choose to shop here of their free choice for reasons we believe we have contributed to. This practice would discriminate against us by encouraging our customers to shop elsewhere. We believe we work hard and conscientiously for our customers and intend to do so for beer and wine as well as for any other products we sell, including many strictly regulated products. We object to any government action which jeopardizes our jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice.

"We believe we have earned the right to be respected for the way we do our work. We demand that if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, our grocery store be given the same permission."

Mr. Speaker: I remind all members that it is sometimes difficult to hear other members speak when there are so many private conversations.

Mr. Turner: I have a similar petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 106 employees of store 724, Lansdowne Food City, by 86 employees of store 701, Brock Food City and by 55 employees of Loblaws Supermarkets, Superstore warehouse division, store 202, all in Peterborough.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Callahan: I have another petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As concerned citizens and employees of supermarkets in the Brampton area, we understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wines in Ontario grocery stores and that this may be confined to so-called independent stores.

"As supermarket employees, we feel that our jobs may be jeopardized by this action and urgently request the government of Ontario to include supermarkets in their designation of grocery stores if such legislation be passed to permit beer and wine sales in same."

Mr. Leluk: I have a petition signed by 28 employees of the Miracle Food Mart store at 120 Eringate Drive in Etobicoke and a second one signed by 15 employees of the Miracle Food Mart at 5555B Dundas Street West in Islington. They read:

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you, as our elected representative, to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store."

This is in relation to the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, which the government of Ontario is proposing to introduce legislation some time in the future to permit in this province.

Mr. Hayes: I have a similar petition dealing with the subject of beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores, which reads:

"We believe we have earned the right to be respected for the way we do our work and we demand that if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, our grocery store be given the same permission."

This is signed by 40 employees of the Zehrs Market in Belle River.

Mr. Grande: I have three similar petitions regarding beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores. I will read one and then I will put in the other two petitions.

This petition is signed by 90 employees from the West Side Food City, 2400 Eglinton Avenue West.

The second petition is from the Loblaws supermarket at 1951 Eglinton Avenue West, and it is signed by 25 employees. The third petition is signed by 29 employees from the Rosebury Square Food City of 145 Marlee Avenue.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Callahan: I have another petition that reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As concerned citizens of Brampton, we heartily endorse and support the concepts and philosophy of naturopathic medicine and, in accordance with our constitutional rights, we urgently request that we have available and be able to choose the health care system of our preference.

"We request the government of Ontario to ensure that naturopaths of this province be guaranteed the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Reville from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $29,075,300; adults and children's services program, $2,434,681,600; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Adults' and children's services program, $22,564,200.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to call order 32, the Wine Content Act; by agreement, not by mistake.

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 97, An Act to amend the Wine Content Act.

Mr. Andrewes: As the critic for wine, I want to indicate to the minister that we will be supporting this amendment bill. The act simply extends what is currently in place and allows the Ontario industry to improve its quality of wine by permitting it to import a designated quantity of wine and wine concentrate from other jurisdictions while better varieties of Ontario grapes are being developed domestically.

The industry has gone through quite a transformation as a result of initiatives of previous governments and, indeed, of the current government. I am sure this move will be supported and endorsed by all members who represent those jurisdictions, including the precincts of St. Catharines and area, in which that fruit of the vine is grown.

There is one matter I want to address to the minister. It is of concern to the growers of grapes in Niagara and southwestern Ontario. It is that the extension of this act should not allow the wineries, which are the primary purchasers of raw grape product in Ontario, an opportunity to get off the hook in terms of the purchase of the domestic crop.

This industry is recognized by its confrères around the world as a valued and high-quality producer of wine. As it moves towards improved maturity and status, which it has gained during the years, the wineries in Ontario need to remain conscious of the need to work with growers to develop a greater content of Ontario grapes in Ontario wine and a goal that all Ontario wines eventually will contain only Ontario grapes.

3:40 p.m.

As the regulations under this act are drawn and addressed by the government, I hope the government, the minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) will show a degree of firmness in dealing with both parties involved, the wineries and the growers, to make sure that Ontario-produced grapes of similar type and quality as those that might be imported are purchased in total from the 1986 crop.

Mr. Breaugh: We have been left with firm instructions by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) that we are to be supportive of the bill, and of course we are, and of any other attempts on the part of the government to foster our domestic wine industry, to enable it to prosper and do well for the people of Ontario. We will support this bill.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I assure the House that the regulations still can be altered; and notwithstanding the fact that we hope to pass the bill, this will not shut out any negotiations between the wine growers and the wineries. We have given them our commitment that the regulations will be altered to reflect any agreement they reach subsequent to this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REPRESENTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act.

Mr. South: I believe the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission has erred in regard to the proposed changes to the riding of Frontenac-Addington. The commission's reasons for the changes indicated in the second report were in error and were contrary to the instructions of this House. The final report is more inconsistent and accomplishes none of the stated advantages of the first two reports.

To salvage some logic and provide a better balance for the riding of Fontana-Addington, the new boundary, as it pertains to Pittsburgh township, at least should be made to conform with the federal boundary. This would ensure that the more rural part of the riding is not included in the riding of Kingston and the Islands. In this regard, I would like to introduce an amendment that the easterly boundary of Kingston and the Islands in Pittsburgh township should be made to coincide with the existing federal boundary.

The Deputy Speaker: I trust the member does not believe he can make this motion now. Any amendment will have to be made in committee of the whole House.

Mr. South: Oh.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to carry on with his speech, or was he finished?

Mr. South: I am finished, but I will be introducing that amendment.

Miss Stephenson: I have a question. Given the specific concern expressed by the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South), does the government House leader's position of yesterday remain unchanged?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is asking a question?

Miss Stephenson: May I not ask the government House leader a question?

The Deputy Speaker: No. The member will address her questions or comments to the member for Frontenac-Addington.

Miss Stephenson: The member for Frontenac-Addington is aware that his House leader has suggested strongly that it would be inappropriate to introduce amendments to the report of the commission except for minor things, such as name changes and boundary changes, that do not involve great population shifts. The question I have to ask is whether the amendment the member is proposing involves a major population shift.

Mr. South: The proposed boundary change would involve a shift back to the riding of Frontenac-Addington of approximately 800 persons.

Mr. Rowe: I rise this afternoon to address Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act, and how it will affect my riding of Simcoe Centre. I have some concern about the proposed change to the boundary line of Simcoe Centre running south on Highway 27, which places the village of Cookstown in the bordering riding of Dufferin-Simcoe.

I have had lengthy deliberations with the residents of Cookstown, and they agree with me that keeping a uniform boundary line would create less confusion for them. As well, my colleague the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) has no objection to Cookstown remaining in the riding of Simcoe Centre.

For as long as one can recall, Cookstown has voted in the riding of Simcoe Centre and, by and large, its people do not wish to be moved. I respectfully request that consideration be given to keeping Cookstown within the boundaries of Simcoe Centre.

Cookstown has always been associated with the rest of my riding. The residents of the township of West Gwillimbury have always done their banking and shopping in Cookstown. Since the early 1900s, Cookstown has serviced the western half of the township of West Gwillimbury and the southwestern part of the township of Innisville. They have always relied on Cookstown as part of the community.

I talked to the residents on the main street of Cookstown last weekend, and they cannot understand why such a change is necessary. They believe they live in a democratic country and cannot understand why such a boundary change is being made with respect to Cookstown. They do not want it, and they cannot understand why it is being placed upon them, especially since I as their member do not want such a change either.

In rural Ontario, politics is a very important part of the life of the residents. Although it may seem to be a matter of paper change to the members of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, it is a much more serious adjustment to the lives of the constituents of the village of Cookstown. It is a major political change in their lives, a major adjustment which, after several years, they do not wish to make.

It is much more than a paper change on a map to the residents of Cookstown. These residents, for as many as four generations, have always lived and voted in this riding and do not understand the necessity for such a change, any more than I understand the necessity to take Cookstown out of Simcoe Centre. Surely, for a mere population of 1,027, it could not have a drastic effect on the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission or on the outcome of an election, but it does have a substantial effect on the constituents of the village of Cookstown.

Cookstown is a proud community that is not against change or progressive thinking. However, the constituents of Cookstown, like all other constituents in this great province, are most adamantly opposed to change for the sake of change. Because the request of the residents of Cookstown will, in essence, have no effect on the electoral boundary changes in the province, I cannot stress strongly enough to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission the detrimental effect such a boundary change will have on the constituents of Cookstown.

I urge the commission to give every consideration possible within its power -- and I know it is within the power of the commission to grant such a minimal request -- to leave the village of Cookstown where it belongs, at home in the great riding of Simcoe Centre.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. McCague: I want to endorse most of what the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) has said, but I do not want to leave any impression that I am happy to see Cookstown stay where it is. I would be happy to have Cookstown in my riding, and I would like him to convey that to the people of Cookstown should the government House leader not be able to accommodate the request set out by the member for Simcoe Centre. Traditionally, Cookstown has been in his riding and I suggest that is where it should stay, but I would welcome Cookstown to my part of the riding if that is the will of the House.

Mr. Rowe: Let me assure the member for Dufferin-Simcoe that in my travels this weekend and from talking to the constituents in Cookstown, I found many of them expressed the opinion that although they do not wish to change, if change is inevitable and they have to move, they will be more than happy to know they will be served by such a great representative as the member for Dufferin-Simcoe.

Mr. Hayes: I see the need to add more representation in the province to represent the constituents better, but I have a problem understanding the rationale of the commission, first, in accomplishing the goal of adding more representation by going down to the southwestern part of this province and destroying or tampering with some of the ridings, especially Essex North. I do not know why it had to interfere with the rural area to accomplish better representation.

Some time ago, before the last mapping was done, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and I both argued against the mapping pertaining to Essex North and Essex South, because we both felt Essex county was going to end up with one representative instead of two. It happens that the member for Essex South was concerned about losing the town of Leamington, which he considers his stronghold. The member indicated he would probably run in Kent-Elgin, where Leamington would be. That would have had two Liberal incumbents contesting the nomination for that riding, and I do not think the party wanted to be in that position.

The member for Essex South got his way. He got Leamington back, and along with that, someone saw fit to give him another part of Essex North, Gosfield North and the town of Essex. I know members of the Liberal Party will probably get up and say they have not influenced the commission, but it appears to me that they have.

It seems there is a bit of a problem down there. The Liberals held Essex North for a great number of years, about 34, and they found it very hard to accept that a New Democrat had won that seat. We made some Liberals in that area rather uncomfortable, and I think the Liberal Party has influenced this commission. I know its members will deny that, but it appears that way to me.

I do not see any sense in taking the town of Tecumseh, the township of St. Clair Beach, the town of Essex, the township of Sandwich West and the township of Gosfield North, all of which are in the county of Essex, and adding some of them to a city type of riding. I do not see any rationale there at all. I feel the ridings in the southwestern part of Essex county and the city of Windsor should not have been tampered with. There is enough population and area there to provide for five members: the three city members and the two county members.

Bill 77 will probably pass -- I do not want to leave the wrong impression here -- even though I do not think it makes any sense to take a riding that is approximately 20 miles long and stretch it out to 72 miles. We are talking about getting more representation for the people but we are actually making it a little rougher for the members to represent their constituents.

Some people did not feel the member for Essex North would get elected in the first place. If this bill goes through, I am looking forward to extending good representation to the people in the new part of the riding, which will be called Essex-Kent.

I reiterate that I do not feel the redistribution was fair. I wish the government would take a look at that and leave the boundaries of Essex North, Essex South and Windsor as they were.

Mr. Mancini: The honourable member made some accusations about the Liberal government. It is my understanding that Tecumseh and St. Clair Beach will be going into the riding of Windsor-Riverside. At present, that riding is represented by a member of his own party, the New Democratic Party. Is the member making the same accusations about us to his own member?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I had an opportunity to listen to the remarks of the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), and I take some offence at them. For the record, I ask the honourable member to confirm it was his understanding that the position taken by this party in the hearings before the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission after the first report was that the county of Essex ought to have five ridings; it ought to have the three Windsor ridings and retain its two Essex ridings. That position was carefully considered by the commission and was dealt with quite explicitly in its second report. It was rejected on the basis of lack of population.

Does the member not accept the viewpoint that this party made it very clear to the boundaries commission that there should be five seats? Only after the commission rejected that position, which I believe was taken by all three parties, was some effort made to bring some sense to the boundaries as they exist. Frankly, if we are not to have five ridings in Essex county -- and that remains my desire today -- then the boundaries that have been pointed out are probably the most sensible arrangement that could be found.

4 p.m.

Mr. Hayes: In reply to the member for Essex South, the mapping prior to the last one took the town of Tecumseh, the village of St. Clair Beach and the township of Sandwich West out of the riding. As I mentioned, the member for Essex South was not here.

Mr. Mancini: I was watching the member on TV.

Mr. Hayes: Good; I am glad. The point is that the member for Essex South and I were not satisfied with the mapping before the last one. It was rather convenient how they were able to take the township of Gosfield North and the town of Essex over and above giving back to the member for Essex South the town of Leamington. I found that interesting. As to the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) I believe he did argue in that manner about having five seats for Essex and the city of Windsor. I know the member made the statement that he is satisfied with the way things have gone, but there is another member here, the member for Essex North, who is not satisfied with it. I hope that answers the question.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I want to make a few comments as well on --

Mr. Mancini: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought you were going to call for more members to respond to the member for Essex North.

The Deputy Speaker: No. The member for Essex North had his reply, and that ends the 10 minutes; then we move on with the debate.

Mr. Mancini: Had that not been the case, I would have jumped up right away.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I want to make some comments as well on Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act. I spoke against this before, but I want to make mention of the fact that in the riding of Lambton, they had --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South should permit the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) to carry on with this debate in an uninterrupted fashion.

Mr. D. W. Smith: They have moved the boundary line into Sarnia township, which is right next to the city of Sarnia. It seems to me the people of Sarnia township are more urban oriented. There is also a municipal boundary change taking place right now; the application was made under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act back in 1982. As long as that is in process, it is possibly premature to make a boundary change at this time. It will not even coincide with the possible new municipal boundary. In most cases, this would be reason enough not to change it at this time. I am not going to stand here and say it is unfair or inequitable, but it is possibly premature in Sarnia and Lambton ridings.

When one drives the riding of Lambton, it takes 10 or 11 hours to travel the entire riding with the current boundaries. If the boundaries are moved into Sarnia township, approximately five miles farther west, it will take a lot more time to get around to constituents, whereas in Sarnia riding at present one can cover it well in a matter of a couple of hours. If the size of Sarnia riding is limited even further, as proposed in Bill 77, one will be around the entire riding in an hour.

I feel it is more or less premature. I am not going to argue whether the commission was fair or equitable, but perhaps we should not make a change until the municipal boundary issue is settled. When we go into committee of the whole House, I may move an amendment to this bill.

Mr. Barlow: I wish to begin by stating that I respect the work and efforts that the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission put into the series of recommendations. However, I do not agree with the one relating to the township of North Dumfries. I am sure the government House leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), being just north of South Dumfries, knows of whence I am speaking.

I believe the commission has put too much emphasis on the size of the populations of the ridings. I feel they did not put enough emphasis on the other criteria before them in their deliberations; such as the community or diversity of interests, means of communications, the existing boundaries of the township of North Dumfries and the existing and traditional boundaries of the electoral district.

The government House leader is aware that on February 4, 1985, the council of the township of North Dumfries passed a resolution recommending that the boundaries be left intact. He is also aware of a further resolution passed on May 26, 1986, at a special council meeting. He is aware of it because he replied to Mr. Griffin, the clerk of the township, on June 11, recognizing the resolution passed at the council meeting.

That resolution, moved by councillor Lina Mills and seconded by councillor Wallace Lake, states:

"Whereas the proposed change in the provincial electoral boundaries would divide the township of North Dumfries into two parts, namely, the former township of Beverly residents would remain with the Cambridge riding, and the balance of the township residents, including the former village of Ayr, would become part of the Brant-Haldimand region; and

"Whereas, in the opinion of the council of the corporation of the township of North Dumfries, the proposed electoral boundary change is not in the best interests of the township residents;

"Therefore, the council of the corporation of the township of North Dumfries requests the province of Ontario to further review the proposed electoral boundary change as it pertains to the township of North Dumfries."

That was passed unanimously about a month and a half ago, on May 26.

Obviously, both the council and the residents of North Dumfries wish to remain part of the riding of Cambridge, a riding they have been associated with since well before Confederation. The riding has changed its name on a few occasions, but the boundaries have remained virtually intact, with the township of North Dumfries being part of that riding. During the years, it has been represented by many people of all political stripes. It has voted every which way in elections during the years since Confederation.

They want to remain part of the regional municipality of Waterloo, which they have been part of ever since the days of the former county of Waterloo; now it is the regional municipality of Waterloo. They are part of that system and wish to remain part of it. To have part of the regional municipality of Waterloo split off into another riding is unfair for them to have to accept.

4:10 p.m.

The reason they want to stay part of the regional municipality of Waterloo and in Cambridge riding is that their tax dollars are earned and spent in the regional municipality of Waterloo. Their school tax dollars are spent in the regional municipality of Waterloo. Their children generally go to high school in the city of Cambridge; some of them go to Kitchener or Waterloo high schools, but they are oriented within the region. Their shopping generally takes place in Kitchener or Cambridge, all within the municipality of Waterloo. Some of them may have their cars repaired at Earl's garage in St. George -- that is quite possible -- but generally their shopping is done within the region.

The majority of the residents who are employed in the work force gravitate to the Kitchener-Cambridge area. There is free telephone service within the region from Cambridge to Ayr and from Ayr to Kitchener. They are part of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Cambridge and North Dumfries, and their mayor actually sits as a commissioner on its board.

With those remarks, l plead once again that the township be retained as part of the regional municipality of Waterloo and as part of Cambridge riding.

I have three questions that perhaps the government House leader can look at and answer in his wrapup talk.

Does the government House leader not agree that traditionally the whole of the township of North Dumfries has very close and interwoven historical, economical, social and political ties with Cambridge and the region of Waterloo?

Will he also respond to the question of how redistribution will benefit the 4,422 residents of North Dumfries who would be removed from the regional municipality of Waterloo?

Further, will the government House leader support the amendment I intend to propose during committee of the whole House, which would leave the township of North Dumfries as part of the regional municipality of Waterloo and as part of the riding of Cambridge?

If he will respond to those three questions, I will very much appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will respond to the honourable member right now, because he must surely be aware that the voting record of North Dumfries township would not make it particularly attractive to a Liberal interloper from a nearby constituency. If there is any thought in the mind of the honourable member or anybody who might read his and my comments that I lust after North Dumfries, that would be a mistake for a Liberal.

However, I have quite a firm opinion that the recommendation of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission should be implemented without change. I do not think it is appropriate for politicians to change the independent recommendation, when there has been every opportunity for individuals, political parties, candidates and municipalities of every description, regional and otherwise, to put their views before the commission.

It should also be understood that the member put his position in the debate in the House after stage two, when the members of the commission were present in the gallery and listened to what he had to say. Evidently, his arguments were not powerful enough to persuade the judge, who is chairman of the commission, a university professor, who is independent, and another person -- I forget what his qualifications were, but they were no doubt outstanding. The point is, the commission is independent and was established as such by this Legislature.

The report is currently before the House, and the tradition of this House -- long-supported by the Progressive Conservative Party to its credit -- is that politicians should not interfere with these changes. I personally feel very strongly this is the position that is worth supporting -- which is the tradition of this House -- in response to this bill, which remains exactly unchanged; it is exactly the recommendation from the independent commission, unchanged by the Liberal government or by any other member.

Mr. McClellan: I want to respond briefly to the remarks of the government House leader. Essentially, I do not disagree with what he had to say, and I say that as somebody whose riding is being eliminated under the redistribution proposals. I do think, though, there was a slightly different understanding of how we might proceed with respect to amendments as discussed by the three House leaders.

My recollection is that there was an understanding that if all three parties could agree on a consensus basis to minor changes in the redistribution proposals, then it was at least contemplated that if such a consensus could be achieved certain minor amendments might pass on a three-party consensus basis. It has not been possible to work out a three-party consensus.

I want to make it clear that as far as my party is concerned -- and I think I am speaking for my colleagues -- we do not intend to support any amendments or changes in the boundaries to the redistribution proposal unless and except there is three-party consensus. We are prepared to support minor name changes that appear to make sense. I thought it might be useful to put that on the record for the debate.

Mr. Barlow: I appreciate the government House leader's comments on the system and the practice in the past. What I am putting forward is not partisan in any way, shape or form. It is a matter of fact that part of the regional municipality is being removed from that regional municipality. It is being taken away into an entirely separate and different county.

As far as the north end of the riding is concerned, South Dumfries in the Brantford area, yes, there is association. There is no association with the south end going down as far as Lake Erie, Dunnville and so on. They are traditionally part of, and politically and geographically located within, the regional municipality of Waterloo, which formerly was the county of Waterloo. They were a part of the county system all through the years.

My argument is strictly as the council wants it. It wants it to remain part of the regional municipality where it pays taxes and where it is serviced through tax dollars and school tax dollars. That is the purpose of my argument. It is solely that and not for any other purpose.

It has traditionally voted Conservative, but not always. It has voted for every political stripe over the years, in recent history as well. Those are the points I want to make very clear to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), and I seek his support when I propose my amendment. I am sure he will want to support me.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Pollock: I would like to enter into this debate. I will be moving an amendment to Bill 77 at the proper time. That amendment will basically ask that the townships of Thurlow, Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve remain within the riding of Hastings-Peterborough.

Before I get involved in that too heavily, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our clerk, Roderick Lewis, and wish him all the best in his retirement. He certainly will be missed in this chamber.

I am proposing to move this amendment because the people have asked for it. I have presented nine petitions to this Legislature from that area asking that they remain within the riding of Hastings-Peterborough; they were from senior citizens, women's institute members and other citizens concerned that they are going to be moved into another riding.

A little more than a year ago, there was a public meeting at the little hamlet of Melrose. There were people there from the Hastings-Peterborough Liberal Association, from the Hastings-Peterborough Progressive Conservative Association and card-carrying New Democratic Party members.

Interjection.

Mr. Pollock: I did not count them, but they all wanted that portion of Hastings county to remain with the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. That is quite understandable. They have always been a part of Hastings county, and they abut the city of Belleville, which is their county seat. Most of them are on the Belleville telephone exchange. They deal with county agencies in the city of Belleville and with provincial agencies in that city. To me, it seems reasonable that they are a part of Hastings-Peterborough riding.

I want to comment on the direction given to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. It is my understanding they were directed to come up with a certain number of people to represent a constituency, 68,000 people. If there were any riding with 25 per cent above that or any riding with 25 per cent below that, they were to move on it. Hastings-Peterborough fell within the framework of that 25 per cent variation, but the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox did not. The commission lowered the population of Hastings-Peterborough so it does not fall within that criterion and upped the population of Prince Edward-Lennox so it does. I do not know what they felt they accomplished by that.

If this amendment goes through, the population of Hastings-Peterborough will be approximately 61,000 people. They abut Quinte riding, which has a population of 67,000 people. They abut Northumberland riding, which has a population of 64,000 people. Hastings-Peterborough abuts Peterborough riding, which currently has a population of 89,000. If some 10,000 people are taken away from Peterborough riding and added to Hastings-Peterborough, Peterborough riding will still have a population of 79,000.

The riding of Hastings-Peterborough just stays in the framework of the neighbouring ridings. Some people accuse us of gerrymandering. I do not think there is anything gerrymandering about asking to have four municipalities that I have represented for more than five years stay within the framework of my riding. I do not believe that is gerrymandering.

I went to the commission and put a proposal. There is a statement here, which I will not read, but it was made by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). He was not the Treasurer then, but the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. He asked that the commission look at the request of Oxford county. That county then wanted to be one provincial constituency, and the member was going along with that and promoting it. It is right here in Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I did not move an amendment to --

Mr. Pollock: No, but the government House leader certainly spoke in favour of it; he sure made his views known.

There is a little quote with reference to television, which says, "Do not let them see you sweat." I do not care if they see me sweat. I am concerned about my riding. I would like those four municipalities to stay within the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. Regardless of political stripe, governments have been accused over the years of not listening to people at the grass-roots level. Here is a chance to support this amendment and show it does listen to people at the grass-roots level.

Mr. Leluk: I am pleased to take part in this discussion on Bill 77 and to express my concerns about the proposed name changes for the four electoral districts within the boundaries of the city of Etobicoke: the ridings of Etobicoke, York West, Humber and Lakeshore.

When my presentations were made to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission in this Legislature, the city of Etobicoke was concerned with respect to the names of these ridings as they stand at present because of confusion that existed in the minds of the public with the provincial electoral boundaries of York West riding, which I happen to represent, and the electoral boundaries of the federal riding of York West, which is not even in the city of Etobicoke.

Etobicoke received the "city" designation in the past three years and has been working very hard to build a strong sense of community identity. All these different names were clouding the "city" name. There is concern about that.

The proposal that was made to the commission was that the name of the four electoral districts be changed to Etobicoke North, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke South, much the same as the city of Scarborough had done some years earlier. What we find in the bill before the House, Bill 77, is that the names that were set out in the electoral boundaries commission's final report have now been changed to Etobicoke-Rexdale, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke-Humber and Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I understand the sitting members in this Legislature representing the ridings of Etobicoke, Humber and Lakeshore have spoken to the commission and requested that these names be changed to the names we find in this bill. The mayor of Etobicoke, Bruce Sinclair, and the members of council are quite concerned about the proposed name changes as spelled out in this bill. I want to put on the record a letter I received from the mayor. It says:

"Dear Nick:

"This is to inform you of my concern and that of council with the proposed designation of the new provincial riding in northern Etobicoke as Etobicoke-Rexdale. I respectfully request your support in having the name changed to Etobicoke North before the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission report is adopted.

4:30 p.m.

"Rexdale has never officially existed as a city, borough, village or even a hamlet. The postal area known as Rexdale is a fairly recent development and represents only a small portion of the proposed riding. To use this designation would be an affront to the other parts of the riding which have contributed more to the history and development of the northern part of our city.

"Etobicoke is currently working to build a strong sense of community and identity. I suggest the new riding be called Etobicoke North, to better reflect its true municipal heritage and geographic position. As well, it would be of greater significance to the constituents of the riding."

I know it is difficult to try to change one particular electoral district such as, in this case, Etobicoke-Rexdale to Etobicoke North and allow names such as Etobicoke-Humber and Etobicoke-Lakeshore to stand.

I want to re-emphasize that the commission in its wisdom chose in its final report to designate the four electoral districts as Etobicoke North, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke South. Even though I respect the fact that Humber is a historical name and has historical significance, as does Lakeshore, it is difficult to designate one area, giving it a name such as Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and yet not do the same for the others.

I would humbly suggest that the commission rethink its position. At the appropriate time I probably will move an amendment to change those four electoral district names back to what the commission recommended in its final report: Etobicoke North, Etobicoke West, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke South.

Mr. McClellan: Has the member discussed his amendments with any other members of the House, in particular those members who currently represent ridings the names of which he is proposing to change?

Mr. Leluk: In reply to the member for Bellwoods, I have this afternoon spoken to the member who represents the electoral district of Etobicoke and advised him of the letter I received from his worship Mayor Bruce Sinclair of the city of Etobicoke and of his expressed concerns and those of council about the proposed name change to Etobicoke-Rexdale.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) disagrees with the mayor and feels he would like to have the name changed to Etobicoke-Rexdale. I have spoken to that member. I just received the letter today and I have not been able to reach the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) or the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier). I will try to do so before amendments are made to this legislation.

Mr. Turner: I rise on behalf of the people of the village of Lakefield, to make their views known with regard to Bill 77. I would like to make it clear at the outset that I do not in any way want my remarks to be construed as being critical of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, because its members have a difficult task. They are three knowledgeable and experienced people, whom I admire very much. Having said that, I think they have exercised bad judgement in their proposals regarding the village of Lakefield as it pertains to the provincial electoral riding of Peterborough.

I would like to put on the record in the beginning that, under the date of April 8, 1986, the village of Lakefield presented to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) a petition, containing 358 names, objecting to its removal from the riding of Peterborough. To date, the Premier has not acknowledged that petition or the accompanying letter.

The village of Lakefield wrote a letter under the date of March 24, 1986, and to date that letter has not been acknowledged. The gist of the residents' objections has been stated before. I would like to run over some of the major points very briefly.

In the final report of the electoral boundaries commission, it made a recommendation that Lakefield be severed from the present provincial riding of Peterborough and become part of the riding of Hastings-Peterborough.

The main bone of contention here was that this proposal was not made in any previous reports of the commission, and therefore the residents of Lakefield had not had a chance to appeal this recommendation. To put it mildly, these people are very upset.

In addition to the letter and the petition that the residents and the council of Lakefield presented to the Premier, the council of Peterborough county passed a resolution on April 14, 1986. It is addressed to Mrs. Dunford, the administrator and clerk-treasurer of Lakefield:

"I wish to advise that county council passed the following resolution at its session on March 25, 1986: `That the council of the county of Peterborough support the request of the village of Lakefield that it be retained in the Peterborough provincial riding and not be redistributed to the Hastings-Peterborough riding.'"

We have the support of the county council, we have the support of the Lakefield council and we have the petition from the residents of Lakefield which was sent directly to the Premier for his consideration and which he apparently has chosen to ignore.

With all respect, I think the commission based this decision to sever Lakefield from the riding of Peterborough solely on the basis of population. I would like to make it clear for the record that if Lakefield were to be retained, the population increase is rather minimal.

I quote from a letter from Reeve Donald Hudson of the village of Lakefield:

"We understand that the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission was instructed not to vary from the average population base of 68,267 by an extent greater than 25 per cent unless, in the opinion of the commission, circumstances existed which made it necessary or desirable to support an ever-greater departure.

"The revised proposals now show Peterborough had a population of 78,967. With Lakefield's population of 2,318 added thereto, it increases the total to 81,285, which is still within the 25 per cent allowed variance. We submit that the commission has given undue weight to the population element at the expense of the elements of community interests and means of communication. Upon reading the supplementary report, you will note therein that there are several instances where ridings exceed the average of 68,267."

4:40 p.m.

I would like to further put on the record that ridings such as Brampton South, which will end up with a population of 79,140, London Centre, with a population of 82,644, Mississauga East, with 81,619, Mississauga West, with a population base of 82,355, and Sault Ste. Marie, with a population base of 83,063, all -- with the possible exception of Sault Ste. Marie -- have a much higher growth rate than the riding of Peterborough. That is a significant matter to keep in mind.

I will be proposing an amendment at the appropriate time. The Treasurer is personally aware of the situation in that great riding of Peterborough. Another significant fact is that the member for the riding of Peterborough, whoever he or she may be, has to pass through the village of Lakefield in order to service or attend the northern end of the riding. Therefore, we have the rather ludicrous situation of a member driving through a village that would not remain in the riding to reach the northern part of the riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Like East and West Pakistan.

Mr. Turner: Those are the words of the Treasurer. I would not dare repeat them.

Thank you for the time. At the appropriate time, when we get into committee of the whole House, I will be proposing an amendment.

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to put a few comments on the record. Some of my colleagues have been making remarks complimentary to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, but I was disappointed and a lot of our people who presented briefs at the appropriate time and who were not recognized in the write-up that followed felt slighted that their remarks were not taken into consideration. I told this to Warren Bailie, one of the people on the commission, and he said it was an oversight and an oversight of a few other members as well, but my people took it as a slight.

The other part that was hard to understand was in the third report. In between, we had an election and in that election we noticed in a neighbouring riding, Frontenac-Addington -- I am glad to see the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) is here -- they took a little dip around his home area in order that he could be in the riding rather than outside it. If that is not right, I know the honourable member will get up and say it is wrong. He surely did not miss much time -- maybe the Treasurer said he did it for him; I do not know -- in getting that changed so that he now lives within his riding. It leaves me, as well as some of my constituents, with some doubt about the fairness of this when that happened so soon after the election.

As most members know, I represent a rural riding and I have always felt that there are fewer and fewer rural riding members. In this redistribution, there are four fewer rural members. I feel that we in rural Ontario have some problems that are not the same as those in the cities. We need more voices in eastern Ontario and in rural Ontario, not fewer.

Whoever is the government of the day and whenever it intends to change the electoral boundaries again, I would like to have it on the record that it should treat rural Ontario the same as northern Ontario and leave the number of seats alone. They may change the boundary lines somewhat, but they should leave the number of rural seats there.

My riding is up to about 70,000 or 71,000 in population now. There is a limit to how much a member for a rural riding can cover in servicing his riding properly. If they keep changing and moving the boundaries, we will not be able to give our constituents the service they have had in the past. We will not be able to address our different problems in the way we have in the past and in the way I hope we will be able to do under this redistribution. If we are cut any more in the future, it will be impossible to do it.

Whoever the new election boundaries people are when we move again, I caution the government of the day, whatever it might be, to take this into consideration so we do not hurt rural Ontario as we have done in this redistribution.

Mr. South: I do not care whether I am in or out of my riding; I believe I will beat anyone the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) coaches to replace me.

Mr. Sterling: As a member of the rural eastern Ontario caucus, I would like to referee that match.

Mr. Wiseman: I am glad the member for Frontenac-Addington confirmed my suspicion that he or one of his colleagues talked to the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. He had better work goldarned hard or he will not win the next time. We will work twice as hard to see that he is put out.

Mr. McGuigan: I want to make a few comments and associate myself with the remarks of the member for Lanark as far as the number of rural ridings is concerned. It is of concern to those of us who represent them to see our numbers diminishing and to have to take on larger ridings, especially when there are so many problems among our rural constituents. Not only are farmers facing economic problems, but also questions of property seem to come up much more often today than in the past. It is a heavy load when we add to it the geography of the situation and the distances that have to be covered.

In general, I approve of the actions of the commission. I realize it has a very difficult job in trying to put together ridings that make sense geographically while giving us somewhat the same numbers.

Looking on my past experience in the riding of Kent-Elgin, I was not as well known in the Elgin part of the riding, which is the smaller part, as in the Kent part. Going to those people over a period of years and having them get to know me was a very heartwarming and wonderful experience as far as I was concerned.

4:50 p.m.

Realizing I was not as well known there, I think I made a greater effort in that area than I did at home. Getting to know those people has been a wonderful experience. In the same way, I look forward to getting to know the people of the western end of the riding after we drop the two townships in Elgin and take on parts of North Essex county. It is a rural riding, very similar to the area I currently represent.

I am happy to say that in my younger days, when I used to operate a truck route delivering fruits and vegetables to the many communities in southwestern Ontario, I covered that area as well. Therefore, I am generally familiar with the geography, the type of agriculture and the type of communities there. I look forward to getting to know those people in the same heart-warming way that I did those in Elgin and I look forward to them getting to know me and to a great and wonderful experience.

In general, I approve of the actions of the commission. There is one little blip on the map that I looked at, wondering how it came about. The north boundary of the riding generally follows the Thames River, but at Thamesville, to reach out and get about 1,000 people to balance the number, it crosses the river and encompasses the village of Thamesville.

I did not speak to the commission on this, but on behalf of my good friend and strong supporter there, Lewis Sherman, who has been a bastion for the Liberals in the village of Thamesville, I am very happy that the commission included that in our riding, although I am sure it was done for other reasons. Nevertheless, it is a great comfort to Lewis and his family and to all the good people of Thamesville.

Mr. McLean: I would like to speak briefly on this bill. Later, after we go into committee of the whole House, I will be moving for very good reasons an amendment to change the name of the riding. We now have a federal riding named Simcoe North and I do not think it would serve any good purpose to have a provincial riding with the same name. I will be moving an amendment to keep the name the same as at present.

When the first redistribution maps came in, there was to be a new riding in Simcoe county and a substantial change to the riding of Simcoe East. I believe it had a lot of merit. However, there were a lot of objections to it and it went back for redrafting. It ended up with a population of about 23,000 in the northern part of the riding. The town of Midland, the township of Tay, Victoria Harbour, Port McNicoll and the township of Matchedash were then included in the riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. In return for that, they put the town of Penetanguishene, the township of Tiny, the township of Flos and the village of Elmvale in the new riding of Simcoe North.

I look forward to having the opportunity of serving that new section of the county of Simcoe. Having served as warden of the county, I am familiar with dealing with that area. I also look forward with great anticipation to the opportunity to represent the people of Penetanguishene and Tiny township.

It is the francophone part of the riding and having the opportunity to serve that will be a great opportunity to extend the French lessons I have been taking to be able to communicate with the people in that area and to help serve them better. I have always been supportive of the policies of our government to promote French services where needed and we have gone a long way to provide services to the francophones in that community.

I also have the opportunity to represent the township of Tiny, a great farming area with a lot of waterfront, and to expand on the area around Lafontaine, which is a great part of Simcoe county. I have supported the community in its efforts to expand its French services; I will continue to do that because it is a great part of our society and a great heritage we must maintain and support further.

Other rural parts of my constituency, Medonte and Oro townships, remain strong. I anticipate the change will be for the better and look for the opportunity to represent the riding.

Mr. Sterling: I will be brief. Later this afternoon I will introduce an amendment regarding the ridings of Carleton, Leeds-Grenville, and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Perhaps when the next redistribution comes around, I would like the process to change somewhat in dealing with rural ridings in particular. The county of Grenville is being severed from the riding of Carleton-Grenville. In itself that is not a great tragedy, but I do not believe the directions given to the electoral boundaries commission some time ago gave it enough leeway to take into account the very significant community and county ties that exist in rural eastern Ontario.

I represent areas within the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and outside the region of Ottawa-Carleton. I believe there are significant differences in the social aspects and in the relationship between the people and their representative. The redistribution taking place in Grenville, which is severing it on a north-south bias and putting the east half in with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the west half in with Leeds, is a severance with which the people of Grenville are having a difficult time. I do not blame the commission for drawing the boundary that way. I think it did so because the population figures it was given to work with by this Legislative Assembly were not flexible enough for the commission to bring back to the Legislature a division that would have enabled the people of the county of Grenville to feel they had been more fairly treated in the whole matter. When the government gives its next directions, I hope it will give the initial directions, the commission will report and then there will be a healthy debate in this chamber on what options would necessarily be given to the commission for it to operate in a more meaningful way. I hope that does not mean an increase in the number of ridings, but it would mean giving more flexibility in certain matters in dealing with different parts of our province.

The member for Lanark has pointed out his concern that rural ridings have not been given enough emphasis. In addition, I would say the concern of the rural areas to keep their communities of interests together has not been properly addressed. I do not blame the commission; I blame the instructions it was given.

5 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have listened to most of the comments made in the debate, and I reiterate what I previously said. I urge members to vote for the principle of the bill. I do not think there is any question that it will be successful.

When we deal with this in committee, there will be a number of amendments. At least five members have indicated their intention to move amendments. I hope the House will reject all the amendments, except possibly name changes that are agreeable to all three parties.

One thing did concern me, and perhaps I should have responded immediately following the speech made by the member for Lanark. As I understood it, the implication was that following the election, the commission, chaired by Mr. Justice Hughes, had adjusted the boundary of the Frontenac-Addington constituency to accommodate the newly elected Liberal member.

First, that is not the case. The honourable member indicated in his previous comments his dissatisfaction and a possibility that he might move an amendment, although I do not encourage him to do that.

Second, the serious matter I want to bring to members' attention is the implication in the comments made by the member for Lanark that somehow or other the judge and the other commissioners were affected by the decision to change the government in Ontario and that their decision, therefore, was made in favour of the newly elected Liberal. I can only presume he said that with his tongue in his cheek or facetiously, because any other construction on that is totally unacceptable both in this House and by the judge and the other members of the commission.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

ELECTION FINANCES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If I may be of assistance, I made an opening comment on this bill and the New Democratic Party responded. As usual, they were ready, aye, ready. The adjournment was moved by the House leader for the Progressive Conservatives. Would members sooner go into committee on the other one first?

Mr. Harris: That would be quite helpful.

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

House in committee of the whole.

REPRESENTATION ACT

Consideration of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Has it been agreed that any votes in committee are going to be stacked?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, there has not been an agreement, but we are quite anxious to make one.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed we will stack votes, if any, on this bill?

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: With respect to the proposal that there be stacked votes, it may not be necessary to have divisions on this statute.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We promise not to stack any votes that do not exist.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the votes be stacked?

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have an amendment dealing with the electoral district of Oxford in your hands. Do you have a copy?

The Deputy Chairman: I understand this is in the schedule; it is not a section.

Mr. Sterling: Yes, it is in the schedule.

The Deputy Chairman: I do not have a copy of it.

Mr. Sterling: Are the other sections being carried first or do you go to the schedule first?

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On the schedule:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that the schedule be amended such that the designated electoral districts of Etobicoke-Rexdale, Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Etobicoke-Humber be deleted as named and instead be called Etobicoke North, Etobicoke South and Etobicoke East respectively.

Mr. Leluk: The reason for proposing this amendment is that the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission recently recommended that the Etobicoke-area ridings be designated as Etobicoke North, Etobicoke South, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke West.

With regard to Etobicoke-Rexdale, Rexdale has never officially existed as a city, a borough, a village or even a hamlet. The postal area known as Rexdale is a fairly recent development and represents only a small portion of the proposed riding which has contributed more to the history and development of the northern part of that city. Designating this riding as Etobicoke North would better reflect its true municipal heritage and geographical position.

With regard to Etobicoke-Lakeshore, there is potential for considerable confusion in that the federal electoral district of Etobicoke-Lakeshore overlaps the same area that is to be identified as the provincial electoral district of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. We would have substantial confusion emanating out of the name change as proposed.

In addition, it has been more than a year since Canada Post strengthened Etobicoke identity by allowing businesses and residents to use Etobicoke as the mailing address. Etobicoke is currently working very hard to build a strong sense of community and identity, and designating the Etobicoke-area electoral districts as Etobicoke North, Etobicoke South, Etobicoke East and Etobicoke West, in my view would be of much greater significance and less confusing to the constituents of these ridings as well as offering consistency throughout the city.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: On the previous speaker's proposal, we had some discussion earlier in the second-reading debate, and the member admitted he had not talked to some of the members whose riding names he is proposing to change.

Mr. Leluk: I spoke to all of them.

Mr. McClellan: He might have spoken to them, but I do not believe the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) support his proposal. It is quite inappropriate for a member to try to name somebody else's constituency.

Mr. Leluk: I have discussed this with the member for Etobicoke and the member for Lakeshore. I was not able to get in touch with the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), but my executive assistant has spoken to him about this. All three members who are involved know about it and about the concerns I and the mayor of the city of Etobicoke have expressed. They are aware I was going to move an amendment. The member for Lakeshore said she would be in this House to speak to this, but I do not see her.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know what stunt the member is trying to pull, but it is not going to fly.

Mr. Leluk: That member should be here. Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The order was called at the convenience of the Tory party because it was unable to proceed with another bill that was in Orders and Notices and was scheduled to be called ahead of committee of the whole House on this bill. Let the loud-mouthed member set the record straight.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I do not normally act as oil on troubled water, but the last thing we need is a slanging match on this bill. The member has put his amendment, and he has supported it. Let us now vote on it.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Pollock moves that the schedule be amended by striking out all under the heading "The Electoral District of Hastings-Peterborough" and adding:

"consists of that part of the county of Hastings lying northerly and easterly of the line described as follows: Commencing at the southwesterly corner of the township of Rawdon; thence easterly along the southerly boundary of the said township to the westerly limit of the village of Stirling; thence southerly, easterly and northerly along the westerly, southerly and easterly limits of the said village to the southerly boundary of the township of Rawdon; thence easterly along the said boundary to the southwesterly corner of the township of Huntingdon; thence southerly along the westerly boundary of the township of Thurlow to the northerly limits of the city of Belleville; thence easterly and southerly along the northerly and easterly limits of the said city to the intersection of the easterly prolongation of the city of Belleville and the centre line of the Bay of Quinte; and the town of Deseronto, the villages of Havelock, Lakefield and Norwood and the townships of Asphodel, Belmont and Methuen, Burleigh and Anstruther, Chandos, Douro, Dummer, Galway and Cavendish, Harvey and Otonabee."

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that the schedule be amended by:

1. Changing the name of the electoral district of Carleton to the electoral district of Carleton-Grenville.

2. Adding to the said riding of Carleton-Grenville the township of South Gower, the township of Oxford-on-Rideau and the town of Kemptville.

3. Adding to the electoral district of Leeds-Grenville the township of Edwardsburgh and the village of Cardinal.

4. Deleting from the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry the town of Kemptville, the village of Cardinal, the townships of South Gower, Edwardsburgh and Oxford-on-Rideau.

5. Adding to the said riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry the township of Charlottenburgh.

6. Deleting from the electoral district of Cornwall the township of Charlottenburgh.

Mr. Sterling: The amendment I am putting forward was done in consultation with the other members of the Legislature who represent these areas.

What this does is to take the county of Grenville and not divide it down the centre. It leaves with the riding of Carleton the northeast quarter of that county, because that part of the county relates very closely to the Ottawa-Carleton region. That is particularly so because of the completion of Highway 416, which the Deputy Chairman is aware of, coming as he does from that area. The completion of that highway, when it goes to the Queensway, will draw that section of Grenville much closer to the Ottawa-Carleton area.

5:20 p.m.

The people of that area have been represented by me for some time and have expressed their desire to remain with that association. In the alternative, they would have accepted an association with Leeds, because Leeds and Grenville is a united county and the municipal political sphere moves to the west rather than the east. That would be their second choice.

The other part of the amendment adds to the Leeds-Grenville riding, as proposed in this legislation, the township of Edwardsburgh and the village of Cardinal. That would put the whole front of the county of Grenville with the county of Leeds. In terms of population, based on the figures presented to the commission, it would leave the existing riding of Cornwall as it now is and it would leave the existing riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as it now is. It would drop the populations of those ridings down by about 6,000 people, making those ridings much smaller but not under the minimum prescribed to the commission by the Legislative Assembly.

The amendment would also transfer in the legislation the township of Charlottenburgh, which is currently represented by my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). He would retain that township to bring the population up to 49,810 people.

As I have mentioned, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) have both agreed that the changes in this proposal would be to their satisfaction. The member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) has indicated he would be agreeable, although he is in no way shying away from representing the people of Charlottenburgh. To accommodate my wishes, he would agree to this. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has indicated he would accede to my wishes in this case, although he is quite willing to give good representation to the people of the eastern half of Grenville county.

While these changes may appear to be insignificant in some ways to the other two parties, they relate to a population shift out of two ridings of about 7,000 people and into two other ridings of about 7,000 people. My riding, if I were left with a Carleton riding, which would become Carleton-Grenville, would go from 57,628 people to 65,159 people, which is still below the average. Leeds-Grenville would go from 67,268 to 73,410 and Cornwall would drop from 58,537 to 51,320. Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would drop from 56,263 to 49,810.

I know these changes are reasonable. They have been presented to the other parties before. I ask for the support of all members of this Legislative Assembly for the wish of the people in the area. I hope they will support it.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Turner moves that the schedule be amended by:

"(a) striking out `Lakefield' in the 12th line of the description of the electoral district of Hastings-Peterborough; and

"(b) striking out `village of Millbrook' in the second line of the description of the electoral district of Peterborough and inserting in lieu thereof `villages of Millbrook and Lakefield.'"

Mr. Turner: The effect of this amendment would be to transfer the village of Lakefield from the electoral district of Hastings-Peterborough to the electoral district of Peterborough.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Mr. Treleaven, moves that the schedule be amended by deleting the phrase "but excluding the town of Tillsonburg" from the section of the schedule marked "The Electoral District of Oxford," and that legislative counsel be given the authority to make any consequent changes in the schedule necessary to conform with this amendment.

Mr. Sterling: The reason the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) is not proposing this amendment himself is that his position as Chairman of the committee of the whole House in some way negates his ability to present it at this time.

I would like to put forward very forcefully his position as he related it to me. The town of Tillsonburg is the only part of Oxford county that has been excluded from the electoral district of Oxford. It is his very strong feeling that it would be more advantageous for the understanding of the citizens of Oxford to have this part of the county included in the electoral district of Oxford.

I cannot speak as eloquently as we all know he did one evening two weeks ago, but I would like to put forcefully that he urges each and every member of this Legislative Assembly, as I do, to support his amendment on this act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am somewhat surprised this amendment is before the House. As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I feel I must express a view.

Going back many years, the Legislature and the various redistribution commissions have come to the conclusion that the great county of Oxford, with the city of Woodstock, is too large to be a single provincial constituency. Through the years, there has always been a part of it that unfortunately, on the basis of a uniform distribution of population, has had to make do with representation in conjunction with a nearby municipality.

As a matter of fact, since 1934 the historic township of Blenheim has not been associated with Oxford for that reason. Since the most recent redistribution, the additional area known as Blandford before the restructuring of the county also had to be separated on the basis that the distribution of boundaries is supposed to give relatively equal force to the individual votes of electors.

5:30 p.m.

The honourable member who has proposed this motion on behalf of the member for Oxford, who feels he cannot speak on it, would give the constituency of Oxford a far greater size than would be consonant with the direction associated with the uniform distribution of the seats. It would be very misleading if the people of Tillsonburg felt that the Legislature, in rejecting the amendment, which the Legislature should do, were in any way doing anything other than carrying out the decisions made by the independent redistribution commission.

It would be unwise if there were any attempt by anyone in any political party to misrepresent either the decisions made by the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission or the decisions made by this House. We feel it should not be on the basis of politics but on the basis of the independent recommendation that has twice been available for input from individuals and municipalities. It is at present put to the House in exactly the terms, without any comma or phrase changed, in which it has come from that independent commission.

For the reasons I have put forward, I sincerely hope the member's motion will not be supported.

Mr. Sterling: The argument put forward by the Treasurer is not perfect in its presentation, because this Legislative Assembly gave the commission its marching orders. As I mentioned earlier on second reading of the bill, those instructions are not perfect in themselves.

Particularly in rural areas where the county community is of great importance, we should overlook the strict population figures that were given to the commission.

We cannot hide in this Legislature behind the independence of the commission. It is up to the Legislature here today either to accept or to change any of the recommendations that commission made. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) may not like that, but that is where the power lies. If the Legislative Assembly feels it is more important to follow what an independent commission says than what members feel is right for the county of Oxford and the town of Tillsonburg, so be it.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. McLean moves that the electoral district of Simcoe North be amended by renaming it the electoral district of Simcoe East.

Mr. McLean: The reason for the amendment is that federally there are two major ridings in Simcoe county: Simcoe North and Simcoe South. The two provincial ridings in the county are Simcoe West and Simcoe Centre, and this should remain Simcoe East. It makes plain common sense.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have been informed by the group which discussed this bill before that there is acceptance of this name change, and we intend to support it.

Mr. McClellan: The government House leader and I discussed this proposal. It seemed to be a sensible one, so I am prepared to support it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Barlow: I also have a sensible amendment to Bill 77.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Barlow moves that the schedule as it relates to the electoral district of Cambridge be amended by striking out all words after "and" in the first line and adding thereto "the township of North Dumfries," and a consequential amendment to the schedule as it relates to the electoral district of Brant-Haldimand by striking out everything after "No. 40A."

Mr. Barlow: The population of the riding of Cambridge as it stands today is 82,155. That was based on the 1981 census. The commission was looking at an average population of 66,347. If we leave the Cambridge riding as it is, it would still fall within the range of plus 25 per cent, which was part of the terms of reference of the commission. To remove, as I propose, part of North Dumfries from Brant-Haldimand and put it back in Cambridge would drop the Brant-Haldimand riding down from 63,546 to 59,124, still well within the range of minus 25 per cent.

I want to re-emphasize the need and desire of the people of North Dumfries to remain part of the riding of Cambridge and I urge the members of this House to so support them.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the motion is lost.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Jackson moves that the schedule be amended by striking out "and westerly" and "thence south-easterly along the said limit to New Street; thence southwesterly along New Street to Appleby Line; thence southeasterly along Appleby Line to Appleby Place; thence southeasterly along Appleby Place and its southeasterly prolongation to the shore of Lake Ontario; thence northeasterly along the said shore to the northeasterly limit of the city of Burlington," under the heading "The Electoral District of Burlington South" in the second, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 10th and 11th lines.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: I will be brief since this is now the fifth time I have raised this point in the chamber. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is painfully aware of the number of times I have raised it. He is also aware of the substance of the amendment and of its implication for the citizens of east Burlington. The member is also aware of the statement I made yesterday in the Legislature that this is an unprecedented response to an electoral boundary change, in so far as this House has never experienced receiving a petition signed by 3,000 residents, it is the only petition received in the House along these lines, and we had two resolutions, from the city and the regional council.

The commission itself indicated in its report that there were weighty arguments for the retention of this section in the riding of Burlington South. I have been led to believe by all three party House leaders that this amendment was under active consideration for a considerable period, along with the resolutions I will have the pleasure of supporting on Essex North and Frontenac-Addington. Unfortunately, I have also learned that my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight) has seen fit to withdraw his support, even though he had indicated previously that he would support the resolutions that were sent to his office from the regional council and the city.

I will leave the manner in which the member may have misrepresented his public position on this to be resolved with those councils. Upon checking with them in the past two days, I found they had the impression he was still actively, publicly and politically, within his caucus, supporting these amendments. At the least, his position is confusing and unfriendly to the citizens of Burlington, and it is quite unfair because, as I indicated earlier, we were very close to an all-party agreement since the matter was under active consideration by the House leaders.

In closing, I would like to appeal to my colleagues here today to set aside their partisan positions. All three House leaders have agreed there is no political advantage to this amendment, but we would be conceding to the specific wishes expressed by the citizens of east Burlington. Therefore, on behalf of the citizens of east Burlington, I will leave their fate to you, since it is relative to the quality and the sensitivity of your response.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with a certain amendment.

ELECTION FINANCES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other acts respecting election financing.

The Deputy Speaker: When we broke off earlier this afternoon, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had moved adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Harris: I have no further comments.

Mr. McClellan: Unfortunately, I have the disadvantage of not knowing whether we spoke. I am told we did speak and, therefore, I do not need to. It is fair to say the bill is the product of a co-operative effort on the part of all three parties. A great deal of work has gone into producing a piece of legislation which has the support of all members of the House, with one or two minor exceptions. We are pleased to see the bill going forward today.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate? The member for Eglinton.

Mr. McFadden: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: Is the member speaking as president of the Conservative Party?

Mr. McFadden: The honourable member asked in what capacity I am speaking. I am speaking as the member for Eglinton. I am also speaking as someone with at least a passing interest, based on my experience over the past number of years, in the impact the bill will have on the party process in Ontario.

It is safe to say our party welcomes this bill and we will be supporting the legislation. A number of the provisions of the bill are long overdue.

The provision relating to increases in maximum contributions to the parties is something that is five or six years out of date. I hope in future the House will see fit to make arrangements so the donation levels more accurately reflect inflation and other cost factors. We welcome the intent of the bill, which is to increase donation limits to something reasonable to compensate for the inflationary pressures the parties have faced since the bill was first brought forward in 1975.

One aspect of the bill I would like to make special comment on, since it does reflect a change from the previous practice and pattern in Ontario, is the requirement that leadership candidates register under the act and make public disclosure of contributions. Having been involved in organizing two leadership conventions in the past 18 months, I welcome the inclusion of this provision.

When the Election Finances Reform Act was passed in 1975, I very much supported it because it had the effect of removing political fundraising from the shadows. It allowed party financing to be done in an open fashion with disclosure of spending as well as donations. In addition to that, the provision that permitted tax credits to be provided encouraged an increased number of Ontarians to take part in the process by donating their funds.

The original act introduced by Premier Davis approximately 11 years ago represented a major and welcome change in the whole approach to political financing. The bill we are considering this afternoon is a further step along that road. It is consistent with the principle of the legislation brought in 11 years ago and improves upon and enhances the practices and principles enshrined in the original Election Finances Reform Act.

5:50 p.m.

The inclusion of leadership conventions within the ambit of the act could potentially be a controversial matter in the sense that, until now, leadership conventions have been considered essentially family matters within parties and the standards and conduct of those conventions were left up to individual parties. I think, though, times have changed. Very clearly, there is a feeling in society that, even though leadership conventions are party matters, there should be a disclosure of donations in view of the importance these leadership conventions have in terms of the government and the politics of the province.

In conclusion, this bill is the product of a co-operative effort by all three parties. It is an example of the kind of good work that can be done on a very important matter in a nonpartisan atmosphere. The Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses, of course, had a role in this and, in my view, the commission deserves a lot of credit for the excellent work it did during the past 11 years. As someone who has dealt with the commission in a number of ways on a regular basis through those years, I think the commission can be complimented for the very fair and practical, but also the very firm way, in which it has dealt with this legislation. I anticipate that if the commission can maintain in the years to come the same standards it has during the past 11 years, the bill we are passing today will be well administered and will contribute to enhancing the standards of conduct in the whole political sphere in Ontario.

Our party is pleased to support this bill. We look forward to working with the commission in carrying out the provisions of the bill and the objects of the legislation.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence at this time. I have been working hard on my notes for this speech.

As we make changes in the act that affects future elections in Ontario --

Mr. Breaugh: Which act is it?

Mr. Cousens: Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act.

Mr. Breaugh: Very good. It looks like an all-nighter.

Mr. Cousens: It could go quite a while. When one has had the problems with the federal election finances legislation that Tony Roman, a very good friend of mine who happens to be the federal member in our riding and who also ran as a candidate for our party a number of years ago, has had --

Mr. McClellan: He was an also-ran.

Mr. Cousens: I will tell members this much: he is better than most of the people who have tried to run for the seat. I rate him as one of the best people who could possibly run for our party in any capacity.

I have a few concerns about the effect of this bill on future elections in our province. The first has to do with the value of signs and inventory. When one has signs from the previous campaign, one wonders how much they will be worth in future campaigns. I have a feeling we could be facing an administrative nightmare unless we are satisfied that the guidelines delineated by the commission are going to be in keeping with fairness and equity with regard to what the value of those signs and inventory really is, and are not going to include some of the permanent fixtures that do not have logos and other party identifications on them.

Running a campaign is a very large expense. Because of the cost, many people are not motivated to get into politics. The other reason that keeps them back is that they do not want to get entangled with a nightmare of administrative, bureaucratic rules and guidelines that require a lawyer and someone with extensive background and training to be able to handle, read, interpret and keep the candidate and his or her chief financial officer out of conflict with the law, out of the courts and out of trouble.

Consequently, when one starts having these guidelines laid out without a totally clear statement of what is going to be required, I would like to be satisfied that the government is not trying to bring in further intrusions to the process of electing a person.

There is a problem in getting good people to run for any party. We should be doing all we can to attract people into politics. We are raising stigmas when we have conflict-of-interest guidelines. People are starting to say, "How is it going to affect my wife, my children or someone related to me?"

A further aggravation to someone getting into politics is the nightmare around this kind of act. How many people are going to read it and understand what it says? Are we going to be depending on people in the commission to be the arbiters of fairness and equity? People who do not know the people who are already there and do not know them to be fair, honest and good might be somewhat reluctant to allow their names to be put forward because of the fear of the consequences of being in breach of that law. There is a serious concern there that comes out of the simple problem of evaluating property and assets before one gets into the campaign.

I have another problem that has to do with the spending limits. As we get into redistribution, some people are going to be happy that their ridings have gone from being very large to being smaller and more compact. I see across from me my good friend the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara). He and I are in the position that our ridings will be blended together. I am honoured and pleased to represent York Centre, but a large segment of that, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, will form part of the new riding of York Centre. I hope to run in the riding of Markham, which will be the corporation boundaries of the town of Markham.

My problem becomes that of others who have large populations in their ridings. The spending limits allowed for campaigns are $2, $1 and then down to 25 cents. This can have quite an impact on a riding as large as mine, which has two local newspapers and, when it is redistributed and the new riding comes into place, will have close to 120,000 people. My riding now has close to 180,000 people. It is going to cost more for any candidate to run a realistic or comparable campaign in a riding as large as I am describing.

Therefore, I would like to see an amendment by the government, with the support of myself and I hope members from all parties, so that the spending limits are increased in the third part of that equation to 50 cents rather than 25 cents.

I am genuinely concerned. I could go on at some length on the effect it has and the mathematics involved. I do not want to do that. I want to make the point that it is going to cost a considerable amount more in a riding as large as I am describing.

The town of Markham is going to grow by 20,000 to 30,000 people per year over the next several years. There is one new subdivision alone that has 65,000 people. It has just been approved.

Hon. Mr. Scott: And not a Tory in the bunch.

Mr. Cousens: I know. That is why I might need a cent or two to get to them. They are all friends of everybody else, but I will be working hard to become their member, to win their respect. They cannot all come up and say, "David, you would not do that to me."

The spending limits are not equitable, based on the potential growth some ridings will experience over the next period. I illustrate it with the riding of Markham, which is going to grow unless the government says there will be no more growth north of Metro Toronto, everything north of Steeles Avenue is going to die. It is not going to do that, because it is too beautiful a place and too many people want to live there.

6 p.m.

I am getting a little diverted. My key point is that the spending limits should be increased to reflect the size of ridings such as the one I hope to represent. To mount a campaign that can touch on a lot of the new people who do not have a history with the riding, the cost of achieving that objective is going to be more than the 25 cents per person that is being allowed now, especially when we are looking at those additional dollars. The amount should be doubled to 50 cents.

I am concerned about the difficulty in some ridings for all parties across this province in finding chief financial officers who are prepared to be responsible for the implementation of this bill. I wonder whether consideration should be given to their becoming paid servants of the province, so there might be some extra incentive for them to take on this responsibility of helping with the electoral process. I do not want to see the taxpayers of the province suffer the expenditure of more money in the election process, yet we are saying we want more from the chief financial officers of campaigns.

I am beginning to feel it is going to be more and more difficult to find people to perform these services and to do the kind of job that is required by an act that has 44 pages to it and an awful lot of points in it. Has consideration been given to this? Can consideration be given to it now? Is there any way we can address the problem of CFOs and their proper compensation?

They accept liability for the job. If they are in breach of the act, they have to face a court scene and investigation. They have to follow it through. Why then are we on the one hand putting them under judgement, but on the other hand not giving them some form of compensation? We do it with auditors. Why can we not do something more for the chief financial officers of campaigns? I hope there is someone in the government who can respond to this. I do not see anyone over there who can, unless the honourable minister does.

My final point is that I would like to see what people are talking about as the spending limits needing to be increased. This bill talks as if there is not going to be any increase in the cost of living in the next period of time. It does not accept that the dollar we are working with today will be worth less as time goes on. Is there any way there can be an automatic review of the spending limits during a period of time by the commission?

It would have to be done by the commission. It is not going to be done by a group of politicians, because they would all be Liberals and New Democrats, and there would not be any objectivity at that point. There would have to be a Conservative in their midst, and there is some doubt that those people would allow a Conservative to participate in that process.

Now is the time to build into the act some opportunity for fairness and equity, to allow an increased amount to be spent on campaigns as inflation goes on. As costs increase, there should be an allowance within the bill to accept a review of those costs.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I would love to believe that. There is nobody I want to believe more than the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), but I just cannot.

Mr. Breaugh: There are a lot of things the member cannot do.

Mr. Cousens: And I do not even try.

There are a number of points I have raised. I believe I have raised them with the intention of trying to see that there is fairness for all in the electoral process. If we do not take these points into consideration, we are discouraging people from wanting to run and from wanting to accept the responsibility of key jobs as chief financial officers.

We are also putting some ridings at a disadvantage, because they will be having a much larger base to support and to present themselves to in the electoral battle. They will be punished by not having more money granted to them. I among them feel the 25-cent level is punitive and unfair, especially to fast-growing ridings.

I wonder whether there is going to be an opportunity to discuss this bill further in committee and to make amendments to it or whether the government is prepared to make some moves to address some of the points I have raised. If I have a sense of that, this will have been worth while. If that does not happen, I feel some people in this province will be shortchanged by this bill, and I do not want to see that. I do not want to see it rushed through without full consideration given to the points being raised now.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to acknowledge the comments made by the honourable members. The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) has highlighted a problem that might occur during the period following the proclamation of the act and preceding the reregistration of a new constituency association. The committee, with members from all three parties, felt it had covered that period. The old organization will have the responsibility and the power to pay its proper bills, and any funds that come in will be distributed according to a process that will be well understood and appropriate. In case any aspect of this is not clear or well understood, the member has suggested an amendment that we think is appropriate. At the right time, he will put it forward. We intend to support it.

The member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) is concerned about an area such as his own, which admittedly is growing extremely fast, and the fact that the limits on campaigning may be too low for what he considers to be a requirement. There has been considerable discussion about what those limits would be. In general, they provide about $50,000 for a campaign in each constituency. In a constituency that is abnormally large or at the upper limit, there would be more dollars, while in a smaller area, there would be fewer dollars. The average is about $50,000.

There was some discussion among the three parties that the limit might be a bit high. I thought it was too high. Other members indicated it was not providing sufficient resources to contact properly all the constituents in an area. The amount there is a result of considerable discussion. While there is not 100 per cent agreement, it is something all parties felt we could put forward.

In areas where the money might be considered to be somewhat inadequate I would not consider it to be unfair. Any inadequacies would affect all the candidates in the same way. It might put a premium on youth, which should not bother the member; such an individual might have more energy to get along from door to door faster and so on. We are not proposing an amendment that would increase that limit.

I hope our experience in the next election, whenever it comes, will show that this is a reasonable limit and that it is possible for a candidate of any political persuasion to put forward his or her concepts of the issues, his or her ability to serve in the Legislature and, incidentally, his or her ability to campaign. I hope the member will find his campaign is not seriously affected by inadequate dollars; but in so saying, I do not wish him well.

Mr. Cousens: In response to the --

The Deputy Speaker: No, there is no response.

Mr. Cousens: After him not wishing me well I feel all the worse.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

6:10 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

ELECTION FINANCES ACT(CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing.

Mr. McFadden: I have an amendment to clause 12(4)(b).

Mr. Cousens: I am preparing one. I did not know the bill was coming to the House today, but it has to do with explanatory note 5. I have to find the section in the bill.

Mr. Chairman: In the meantime, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) had an amendment to sections 46 and 56.

Mr. McCague: I have a question regarding section 12.

Mr. Cousens: I reserve the right to bring up a number of others.

Mr. Chairman: We would have a problem, because we have to carry them up to a certain point. If your amendment is prior to that time, we will have passed it by. We have to know at least what number it is to stand it down.

Mr. Cousens: Mine will be after section 12.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 12:

Mr. McCague: I just need a point of clarification from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. Subsection 12(2) talks about "all funds of any association not required to pay outstanding debts shall be held by its chief financial officer in trust." At the bottom of the page, clause 12(4)(b) talks about what the trust officer must do with those.

My layman's reading of subsection 2 would say there might be two funds. One fund may be necessary for the payment of outstanding debts and the other fund may be in trust for the CFO who has been deregistered but given the job of paying the debt. Can the member explain that to me?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The people who were charged with recommending the details of the bill, representing all three parties actually, laboured over this considerably. There is a period when the old constituency will not be carrying on its normal activities, yet there is a good chance bills will remain and in some instances new bills may be incurred for various activities the constituency might properly be undertaking.

The meaning of these sections, as I understand them, is that all those moneys will be held in trust by the chief financial officer. It is his responsibility to hand over moneys remaining according to a formula for distribution to the newly registered constituencies. From those moneys he has in trust, it is his trust to dispense those in payment of appropriate bills authorized by this legislation.

I hope there will not be a concern, and I suppose in many respects we are depending on the election expenses commission, which most of us have experienced as not only sensitive and helpful but also knowledgeable in these matters, realizing there is no intention for anyone to misrepresent or misappropriate any of these dollars. The commission itself has the watchdog and guardian responsibility, but the duties of the chief financial officer are set out in this bill and in this section as clearly as possible.

The member's colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) is proposing an amendment for some clarification on the ability to pay bills incurred during the period following deregistration, following the proclamation of the bill. We believe those powers are already there, but from what the member said on second reading, his comments will assist in clarifying that matter.

I do not envisage two funds. I believe all the money to be in trust, but part of the trust involves the responsibility of the chief financial officer to pay approved bills from the old constituency.

Mr. McCague: In subsection 12(2), why does it not say all the funds of any association shall be held by the chief financial officer rather than putting in "not required to pay outstanding debts"? Why is that there, when below it again refers to outstanding debts as the responsibility of the person who holds the money in trust? I cannot understand that, and it is going to be confusing to chief financial officers.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not see how it might be envisaged that there will be two funds, one in trust and therefore inviolate, and the other a sort of checking account to pay the bills, because I am not sure it would be possible to know how big the checking account to pay the bills would have to be.

Those words may be misleading to some extent, but my understanding is that the chief financial officer has the responsibility to pay all authorized bills and to hand on the rest in trust to the subsequent constituency organizations. I do not think this is going to be a problem, but I can check it with the officials, if the honourable member will allow us to proceed, because we are not going past section 12 for a minute or two.

Mr. Chairman: We will carry on with clause 12(4)(b) while the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is finding some information.

Mr. McFadden moves that line 1 of clause 12(4)(6) be amended by adding, after the words "outstanding debts" and before the words "from funds," "and expenses incurred in relation to the administration of the constituency association."

6:20 p.m.

Mr. McFadden: The reason for this amendment is to remove any cloud of doubt about the ability of a riding association to carry on normal activities and to pay its bills during the period from the time this act comes into effect until the new riding is registered.

Reading the wording of the bill without this amendment, it appears that the only accounts the chief financial officer could pay would be debts outstanding at the time of deregistration. I know one could construe it more liberally to mean outstanding debts that might occur from time to time, but the worry I had with the wording was that "outstanding debts," as it is worded there, could indicate that those debts would he those debts outstanding at the time of deregistration. If that became an operative interpretation, or if it were narrowly construed, every riding association in Ontario could be faced with some significant problems during the period from deregistration until the new riding association was created and recognized.

I know the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses could broadly construe it and say: "It is okay. Anything goes. Any accounts that were incurred during that hiatus or deregistration period would be okay." However, my worry is that the chief financial officers who work in our ridings are all volunteers; they are all working hard --

An hon. member: In your riding?

Mr. McFadden: In my riding as well; they are all working. I would not like to see them bogged down worrying about what they could or could not pay. Therefore, this amendment is intended to permit the chief financial officer to pay those expenses that are incurred during the administration of that constituency association during the period from deregistration until the new riding association is created. That will help to remove any shadow of doubt as to what the chief financial officer can legitimately pay.

As I mentioned, I felt the earlier wording was a little confusing and perhaps a little too restrictive. I think this wording will allow the chief financial officers of all the riding associations to be able to carry on with the administration of their riding associations in the ordinary course. Therefore, I ask for support of this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We feel the amendment is worth while, and we will accept it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to return to the comment made by the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague). I have checked with the officials, and while I agree there is a certain confusion in the wording -- it actually came from the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses originally -- their interpretation is that the chief financial officer has personal and legal responsibility for the trusteeship and the expenditure of those funds. It is not two funds. He/she is empowered to spend money to pay the debts that are properly approved, and anything beyond that is passed on through an appropriate formula to the succeeding constituency or constituencies.

I hope the honourable member will accept that. I cannot give a better explanation. I think it is okay.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 13 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 39:

Mr. Chairman: Carry on, member for York East.

Mr. Cousens: No; it is York Centre. If I got re-elected under the new guidelines, it would be the riding of Markham, but by the way we are going, I have fears for anyone who is running in a large riding. Because of that, I move that subsection 39(2) of Bill 103 be amended by striking out "$0.25" in the 11th line and inserting in lieu thereof "$0.50."

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 39(2) of Bill 103 be amended by striking out "$0.25" in the 11th line and inserting in lieu thereof --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Dispense.

Mr. Chairman: -- "$0.50."

Mr. Cousens: I like the way the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk says "dispense." They would dispense with the truth if they could. We cannot.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, this is a real good way to get your amendment carried.

Mr. Cousens: I take it back.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not mind being inept, but the member carries it to extremes.

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to do that. I want support if I can get it. When I have the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk not wishing me the best of luck in the next election, that makes me work all the harder to try to get this through.

It could apply to some of the other members here. Who knows? If one has a large riding, the costs involved in that process are such that there should be recognition in this bill for the size of campaign that is mounted. The thing that is going to happen is that the person who goes over the amount is going to be charged. That has happened under the federal legislation. There have been all kinds of charges. Let us put it in the bill now so that those who have large ridings to serve can be compensated in the provision of this amendment.

I beseech the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I am sure it is not unanimous even within his own party that all members want to see someone such as myself or others from large ridings suffer a disadvantage. It could well be the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara) or members for the new riding of York Centre or the new riding of St. George-St. David.

Mr. Mancini: Who is going to support it?

Mr. Cousens: We do not know about the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

I present this in the spirit of the best interests of the people of Ontario. Rather than continue to talk about it, I trust other members will support it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member may have hit a chord when he indicated that some of my colleagues are more enthusiastic about his amendment than I am. At the risk of endangering party unity in this matter, it is my intention to use whatever influence I have to save the member and some others from themselves. I believe that the simple presentation of the policies and the abilities of the individual, with the $50,000 that is envisaged to be the campaign amount, will be sufficient. On that basis, we do not intend to support his amendment.

Mr. Cousens: Just to make another point, the riding I am talking about could well be double the size of the average riding in Ontario within five years. It could be three times the size of another riding within 10 years, before we get redistribution again. For that reason, I plead that there be consideration for those ridings that end up growing to such an extent.

Can there be a free vote on this? Perhaps the House leader of the number one party this week can agree to a free vote.

Mr. McFadden: My colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) seems to be on his own in speaking on behalf of his amendment. I suggest his amendment is a relatively small increase from 25 cents to 50 cents per voter. For a riding such as mine, which has a fairly static population, it is not an issue. I suggest to those members -- and it is not just the member for York Centre; other members are going to be affected by major population increases within their ridings -- that it hardly defeats the spirit of this section of the bill to make the amendment suggested by the member for York Centre.

Given the fact that certain ridings have special problems, particularly where they are adding hundreds and thousands of people to the riding over two, three or four years, I do not believe it in any way defeats the principle or the purpose of the restraints placed on spending under section 39. I think it is reasonable and I suggest it will be helpful, not just to the member for York Centre but to other members faced with this situation, if this amendment were to be looked on not as an unfriendly amendment or an amendment in any way to defeat the purpose of the bill but as an amendment that is reasonable in the circumstances the member for York Centre and others face.

6:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Although my knowledge of the bill is encyclopaedic, it has been brought to my attention that subsection 4(3), at the bottom of page 7, states: "The commission shall, within 60 days following the campaign period in respect of each general election, make recommendations to the Speaker of the assembly with respect to...changes in limits on campaign expenses."

Mr. Chairman: May I draw the honourable member's attention to the clock?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I guess so. I move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Nixon has moved that the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wait a minute. Perhaps this one could be disposed of before we rise.

Miss Stephenson: Read the remainder of that section.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member is interjecting and asking me to read some more. It says "changes in limits on campaign expenses which may be incurred during a campaign period by candidates or political parties." The rest of the section is lengthy and I do not have time to read it.

Miss Stephenson: It says, "and the Speaker shall cause such recommendations to be" --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. Standing orders say the committee must rise.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

July 8, 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMENTAIRES D'UN ANCIEN MEMBRE

FAMILY VIOLENCE

SMALL BUSINESSES

COMMENTAIRES D'UN ANCIEN MEMBRE

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

TWINNING OF CITIES

FORMER MEMBER'S COMMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER MEMBER'S COMMENTS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

DOCTORS' FEES

ABORTION CLINIC

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

INVESTMENT IN THE ARTS

EXTRA BILLING

PRISON FACILITIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

EXTRA BILLING

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS LEGISLATION

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

CONTROL ORDERS

RELEASE OF REPORT

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

BASEBALL GAME

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

NATUROPATHY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

REPRESENTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

ELECTION FINANCES ACT (CONTINUED)

REPRESENTATION ACT

ELECTION FINANCES ACT (CONTINUED)

ELECTION FINANCES ACT(CONTINUED)