Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HOUSING IN WINDSOR AREA

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce this morning that Ontario Housing Corp. has signed an agreement with Cadillac Development Corp. for the purchase of 992 serviced building lots in the area in Windsor known as Little River Acres. These lots will be utilized for the production of ownership housing under the zero-lot-line concept, which permits the development of more detached housing per acre than conventional methods.

The first group of 96 houses is currently under construction. They will be sold under the HOME plan at prices ranging from $19,000 to $20,300. Mortgage financing will be provided by the province at 8.75 per cent interest with an amortization period of 35 years. Depending upon the Windsor market, it is anticipated that 300 or more zero-lot-line houses will be produced at Little River Acres this year.

OHC, in close co-operation with the city of Windsor, recently obtained 316 acres of land, known as the Hall farm, off Lauzon Rd. in the southeast section of the city. About one-half of the site will be developed for low-density residential purposes. The balance, which is influenced by noise generated by the Windsor airport, will be devoted to industrial sites and a regional park. This land, together with 762 acres already owned by OHC at Riverside Acres in the northeast section of Windsor, provides the Ministry of Housing with a Windsor landbank of some 1,100 acres.

I am also pleased to announce that OHC has just completed negotiations for the purchase of the Norton Palmer Hotel and its site. This downtown Windsor landmark will give way to a senior citizens residence of between 200 and 250 apartments. It is anticipated that a portion of the development will accommodate municipal parking and that the ground floor of the building will include commercial space. The Norton Palmer will be razed in late summer or early autumn, and if all goes well it is reasonable to expect that construction of the senior citizens residence will begin early next year.

This year we will have some 300 houses built at Little River Acres, of which 10 per cent will be made available to the Windsor Housing Authority for the family rental housing programme. We will have 430 senior citizens units under construction, and we hope to acquire another 50 rent-supplement units in the private market. This represents a minimum of 730 housing starts in Windsor for which the Ministry of Housing will have some responsibility, or 35 per cent of the normal annual housing production in Windsor of some 2,000 starts.

DOMINION DAY CELEBRATION

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the members’ attention the fact that again this year my ministry has arranged for Dominion Day celebrations on the lawns of the legislative buildings on July 1. The theme is again a family-style picnic where all are invited to enjoy three hours of entertainment, nickel hotdogs, five-cent soft drinks, etc.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The good old days.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The government’s anti-inflation programme.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This year, Mr. Speaker, we are privileged to have a very special guest, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, who will attend at 10 o’clock in the morning just prior to her return to London.

May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to extend to all members of the legislative assembly and to all residents of the province --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The minister means to Toronto members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- an invitation to join this celebration marking Canada’s 107th birthday. We will be very happy to have the hon. member for Thunder Bay too.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, at the end of today’s question period, I will be introducing amendments to the Workmen’s Compensation Act which will benefit those workers whose pensions have been depreciated by inflation.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Thank God!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The amendments will provide benefits for most injured workmen presently receiving a Workmen’s Compensation Board pension. The members will recall the task force on the Workmen’s Compensation Board which reported to my predecessor last September. A number of the changes which I will be outlining today are based on recommendations of that task force.

The pensions which are presently in existence will be increased by a maximum of 60 per cent based on the following formula: For those persons who became eligible for disability pensions during 1973, their pensions will be increased by four per cent; for those who became eligible for pensions in 1972, their pensions will be adjusted by eight per cent; for those who became eligible for pensions in 1971, their pensions will be increased by 10 per cent; and for each further year a person has been eligible for a disability pension period to Jan. 1, 1971, that pension will be increased by an additional two per cent per year, to a maximum of a 60 per cent increase.

Mr. Shulman: They would have had to be on pension for 28 years to get the 60 per cent!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House I should indicate that the formula to which I refer will be applied to the original pension of the worker. Thus, if a person was injured in 1945, the maximum 60 per cent increase will apply. If that results in an amount in excess of the new minimum of $260 per month, the worker will get that increased amount. But if the figure is less than $260, the worker will get the $260 minimum.

I hope that this legislation will pass the House in time for it to be effective July 1.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Sure, why not?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to announce several other changes in pension benefits which are to be included in the legislation:

1. The earnings ceiling for the calculation of benefits will be raised to $12,000 per year from the present figure of $10,000.

2. The minimum total permanent disability pension and widow’s allowance will be increased by four per cent to $260 from $250 per month.

3. Full benefits to partially disabled injured workmen who are unable to find suitable employment will now continue as long as the workman is attempting to find employment or accepting training which the board may deem advisable.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Excellent.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): How many years has that taken?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Boy, is this about time!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the members might be more familiar with this problem if I refer to it as “light work.”

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs): There’s a minister for you!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: To continue:

4. The bill will also deal with dependants’ pensions. The requirement that a dependant’s pension not exceed the deceased’s earnings will be removed. This means that dependants of a deceased injured workman will not be affected by that workman’s former salary.

5. The amendments will also cover the situation where a permanently totally disabled pensioner dies of a cause unrelated to the injury which entitled him to that pension. The dependants of that workman will now be entitled to receive workmen’s compensation benefits as if the workman died as a result of his injury.

6. The amendments will also ensure that the pension to a permanently totally disabled workman will never be less than the pension which would be payable to his dependants if he died.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a pity some of the other members of the cabinet didn’t decide to run federally.

Mr. Breithaupt: Give them a reduced rate.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Finally, Mr. Speaker:

7. The clothing allowance for the repair or replacement of clothing worn or damaged by reason of wearing an artificial limb will be increased substantially to reflect cost changes since these allowances were established in 1968.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that the assessments to industry will be increased by an average of eight per cent to cover the costs of these benefit changes. Of course each rating classification will be affected by a different percentage. Prior to these changes, average workmen’s compensation assessments amounted to approximately 1% per cent of an employer’s payroll, and these benefits will increase that 1% per cent by eight per cent to approximately 1.6 per cent of an employer’s payroll. These increased industry assessments will become effective on Jan. 1, 1975.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Workmen’s Compensation Board has undergone rather dramatic changes in the past 10 months. Many of these changes have already become evident to both the injured workmen of Ontario and to the members of this House. These benefit increases are simply one more step in that transformation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, the Hon. Fern Guindon, and the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Mr. Michael Starr, over the past months have both indicated on many occasions that the pensions had been eroded by inflation and required adjustment. As a result of this, the board was requested to produce concrete recommendations to implement these decisions, .and the government felt they should be made effective July 1 in spite of the fact that the legislation could not be introduced prior to today. I might also point out that these benefits will be periodically reviewed.

As the hon. members know, the question of who should pay for the cost of updating previous pensions was examined seriously by government. It is recognized that some of today’s employers were not in business when some of these accidents occurred, but it was believed industry as a whole should properly bear the cost of its accidents rather than the taxpayers of Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, what action he intends to take following the report of the public accounts committee bringing to the attention of the House the reticence of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in making information available to the committee on the matter of pertaining to the $25,000 payoff for Mr. Kenneth Passmore who was dismissed and given a year’s pay in advance, which was not satisfactorily explained; and their recommendation that penalties for the conflict of interest be added to the legislation? Can the minister tell the House what action he intends to take in this regard?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I have read the report of the committee this morning for the first time. Looking at the 13 recommendations, I intend to meet with the members of the ONTC and go over all of these recommendations and to implement those which have been brought forth. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the position that has been taken by the committee, that as far as the conflict of interest area is concerned, it should follow along the same line as applies in the Municipal Act. We will be looking at all of that.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The minister changed his mind.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the comment is that I have changed my mind. I will take this opportunity here and now to state that it has been said by members opposite, both here and in this House and in the press, that I have said the conflict of interest regulations were trivial and unnecessary. That is absolutely untrue.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The minister said it.

Mr. Laughren: Somebody got to him. Somebody rapped his knuckles.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What I said in this House was that I felt this present method, and the present portion of the Act that covers the ONTC, was too restrictive and that I thought there were some silly areas in that.

Mr. Laughren: The Premier (Mr. Davis) rapped his knuckles for him.

Mr. Singer: Read Hansard. Has the minister read what it said in Hansard?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am pleased to accept any change in the Act, which was prepared many years ago. But I completely and totally subscribe to conflict of interest regulations as they apply to the members of the cabinet, and I think, quite frankly, sir, that they probably should apply to every member of this Legislature and would support any such move.

Mr. Lewis: We have advocated that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I challenge anyone in this Legislature on either side of the House, to check my record and find anywhere, where I have ever been in favour of making conflict of interest an acceptable practice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The minister’s record is a short one.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The minister didn’t react properly in the first instance, that’s his problem. He can’t recover now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Perhaps for the clarification the minister seeks, can he now indicate his view of the conflict of interest that resulted in the resignation of Mr. Kennedy? Does he feel that was a real conflict? Does he feel the resignation was warranted? Because I believe it was in connection with that very case that he gave the impression to the House that he felt that Mr. Kennedy was not fairly dealt with by the legislation, or particularly by the attitude of various opposition members.

Mr. Renwick: The minister’s response was not appropriate and he is trying to catch up now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I feel that the particular section of the Act is so restrictive in the broadness of its terms that many capable people, like Mr. Kennedy and others who are serving on other boards and other commissions, are being placed in a position where they cannot serve.

Mr. Renwick: That is now saying exactly what he denied he said, and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I feel that changes are necessary. I have said publicly and here in this Legislature, that I do, in fact, believe --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A conflict of interest means you don’t do business with a corporation or company of which you are a director.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I do, in fact, believe that technically Mr. Kennedy was in conflict; and that he did, in fact, resign, like the gentleman that he is. I have no quarrel with that. I simply said, and I say it again, that I feel that particular section of the Act is too restrictive, and many fine people -- in northern Ontario in particular where there is a limited population to choose from -- cannot serve on these boards and commissions.

Mr. MacDonald: How? How is it this fundamental point can’t be grasped by this government?

Mr. Renwick: It is in every conflict of interest.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister is accepting the recommendation of the committee that there will be penalty clauses put into that Act, does he intend to bring forward a further amendment that would, in his words, I suppose remove the restrictive aspect of that clause? I don’t believe it is unduly restrictive.

Mr. Lewis: It is not unduly restrictive.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to follow along with the recommendation that was put forth by the committee, to use the same sort of conflict of interest rules as they apply and are outlined in the Municipal Act and apply to municipal politicians.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Sudbury was up for a supplementary,

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Could I ask the minister if he has it under active consideration to abolish the whole commission and take this operation in as a wing of government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur -- or rather the hon. member for York South, I’m sorry.

Mr. MacDonald: My supplementary to the minister is this: Since the fundamental issue in conflict of interest is that a man on a commission should not do business with a public body on which he sits, how does the minister deem that section to be unduly restrictive?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: That is what he was doing; doing business with the corporation.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, answer that question.

Mr. MacDonald: How was that unduly restrictive?

Mr. Renwick: Answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am simply saying, Mr. Speaker, that as far as I am concerned, regarding that particular section, there is no question in my mind that there was a technical conflict of interest.

Mr. MacDonald: It is not technical, it’s fundamental.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: There is no such thing as a little bit of pregnancy.

Mr. Lewis: The minister still doesn’t understand the point. And if he doesn’t understand it, it should not be in his jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer it simply this way; that we will take whatever action is necessary to change that particular section of the Act to put in the penalty clause.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: No way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Will the hon. member for Port Arthur sit down and keep quiet; whatever he is saying is of relatively little importance.

Mr. Foulds: I have been sitting, I am not standing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We will implement the recommendations that have been brought forth by the committee, one of which is to put in the penalty clause in connection with provisions similar to those in the Municipal Act. I have agreed there was a conflict of interest in that particular area. The gentleman has resigned.

Mr. MacDonald: It is fundamental, not technical.

Mr. Renwick: It was not technical.

Mr. MacDonald: You don’t do business with a corporation of which you are a part.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Did I understand the minister correctly? Was he implying it is more difficult to obtain competent people from northern Ontario to serve in public office?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What I said, Mr. Speaker, was there is a limited population in northern Ontario and there are people who offer themselves to serve in some communities where, if they did take that office, they automatically would be in some form of conflict within the terms of that particular Act.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, they should not be in it then. That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let me point out, for example, that one of the commissioners also operates the only newspaper in Kapuskasing. He would be in conflict, I suppose, in the terms of that Act, if he prints one ad within that newspaper relative to time schedules and what have you, of that particular railroad. Yet by taking him off you would be eliminating a man from serving in that area.

Mr. Germa: Take him off.

Mr. Deans: He is not the only person there who can do the job.

Mr. MacDonald: There are others in Kapuskasing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: The number of competent advisers are so few in number.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

MINI-SKOOLS LTD.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development why she indicated yesterday in her answer to a question previously asked that Great-West Life had nothing to do with Mini-Skools when its annual report of 1973 indicates that in 1972 that life insurance company, head- quartered in Winnipeg, acquired an interest in Mini-Skools of 30 per cent of the common shares and a large holding of the preferred shares?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I think in my statement yesterday I indicated that our investigation had not made any connection between the two.

Mr. Cassidy: Like the minister’s investigation of day care, isn’t it? Equally superficial.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Surely the minister must realize that her answers in the House must be accepted by all of us -- as they are -- as the best information she has. If, in fact, she checks this out further and finds that the information that she had is not right, or the information I have is not right from the annual report, will she make a fuller report on the involvement of private enterprise and Conservative politicians from western Canada in the organization and operation of Mini-Skools as a profit-making corporation, which is expanding rapidly into Ontario and many other centres?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite pleased to have another investigation.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary on that. Could the minister also determine why there is a member on the board from Atlanta, Georgia, and whether there is therefore a multi-national tie to Mini-Skools? I think this is quite legitimate. I want to know about American money in Ontario operations, if that’s what happening. Surely that is also part of the examination to which the minister should subject the board of directors, now that it appears her information apparently was wrong.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very pleased to look into that situation. But I would like to point out to the leader of the NDP, that he doesn’t seem to have the same concern about the international problem with Browndale and its international group homes here in Ontario.

An hon. member: A very good point.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know what that has to do with it.

Mr. Speaker: I think in view of the answer it’s fair to let the hon. member for Scarborough West ask a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll put the supplementary this way. Would the minister like to take a look at those ties as well? Because if so, I invite the minister to do so. All right?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I thank the leader of the NDP for the offer to allow me to do it. We intend doing just exactly that.

Mr. Lewis: Fine; okay.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the minister if she is concerned about that international connection? And if she is, why does she persist in allowing a policy to continue which spends $6.5 million of our taxpayers’ funds on the care and treatment of 300 unfortunate young people in this province, who in my view ought to be cared for by public facilities.

An hon. member: Even if it costs more money.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It doesn’t concern the minister?

An hon. member: She doesn’t care.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Labour has disappeared. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Labour is in the back row.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s all right. I’ll see him in a minute. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if the gift of mouldy vegetables that we read about in the Sun newspaper this morning is going to enable him to focus the attention of his ministry on the problem faced by the three farmers in the Waterford area who have suffered seriously over the last three to four years from weed spray problems in their own crops? Is he aware of the circumstances, which are going to drive those people off their lands because they have not been able to grow a profitable crop for the last three years?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I understand the matter is before the courts at the moment. We hope for a satisfactory determination for all concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that there may not be a satisfactory determination from the courts, that in fact the Supreme Court has already found that no one is responsible and that 2,4-D has infected the water supply to the extent that they have no recourse but to bang on the door of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and ask for some remedy and some assistance?

Would the minister consider a statute which might compensate people who are harmed by these agricultural chemicals in cases where no legal responsibility can be pinned down by the courts or by anybody else?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, being a very reasonable person, I am always willing to consider anything. That’s typical of this government. We’ll be glad to do that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is it also typical of this government that the specifics of this case, which I put in a letter to the minister some weeks ago, have somehow escaped his attention and that he has not been giving it any consideration that I know of during these many weeks, in fact months, that the problem has plagued people who are referred to in this article, and doubtless others in this province?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As I said, we’ll look at it.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): It takes some time to look at it.

HAYES-DANA LTD.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour -- he is just on his way back to his seat; well, I’ll ask him something some other time perhaps --

Mr. Deans: He’s coming.

Mr. Deacon: He can’t get past the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister examined the situation that involves the operation of a company called Hayes-Dana Ltd. of Thorold, Ont., who have been struck for a considerable length of time and are evidently planning to relocate their operation in the United States, which will involve the loss of approximately 400 jobs under these circumstances if some action is not taken?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that one, but I will get after it immediately.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I discussed this matter with the minister the other day. I’m deeply concerned about the problem, and I understand that there is some further --

Mr. Foulds: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member terminate his speech and ask a question?

Mr. Haggerty: Can the minister indicate to the Legislature when he will introduce new labour legislation to protect Ontario workers in maintaining their employment here in Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What is the question?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m sorry, I don’t get the gist of the question.

An hon. member: He doesn’t either.

Mr. Haggerty: The question is, will the minister introduce legislation that will protect the labour force in the Province of Ontario so that we don’t have industry closing down and perhaps relocating in the United States?

Mr. Speaker: I think that’s hardly supplementary to the original question.

An hon. member: That was a good one.

Mr. Speaker: It was not properly supplementary.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No more questions. I don’t want to fight.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: How did he and his cabinet colleagues ultimately decide to fund the many changes they have made in the workmen’s compensation pension levels this morning? How are they doing it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as you will realize, of course, it was not indexed. We made some comparison to what we had recently done for the civil servants, the pensioners and the teachers, but on the whole it was a judgement call. As you will realize, Mr. Speaker, some of these pensions go back as far as 1917, I believe. The minimums have been increased from time to time, but if they were above the minimum they may never have been increased. There were periods, of course, when the pensions were a little better as the value of the dollar had gone up at that point -- during the Depression, for example. In any event, it was a judgement call, and that is all I can say.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Recognizing that by far the majority of what he has announced this morning is acceptable and worthwhile, how did he arrive at the four per cent increase for widows’ pensions? It was a weakness in his statement -- surely the weakest statement the minister made this morning.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, again all I can say it was a judgement matter. We would like to do more for these people, but it is other peoples’ money we are dealing with and there has to be some restraint. I am quite sure I can say that we are not being as generous as we would have liked to have been, but the question is, which is inflationary. Should we perhaps move these in advance or should they drag a little? When one is dealing with widows it is always difficult.

Mr. Deans: A further supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister feel that the formula which was worked out for the upgrading of the disability pensions, the four per cent on last year and the two per cent back through all of the years, could have been equally applied to widows’ pensions? He knows, as I know, that the four per cent doesn’t even come close to meeting the cost of living in the last two months, never mind in the last two years.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There have been increases at the minimum level and to the widows before, as the member knows, but I would agree that the four per cent is certainly not what the cost of living has been since the last increases.

Mr. Deans: That’s a real weakness.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

STRIKE AT FORT FRANCES CLINIC

Mr. Lewis: May I also ask the Minister of Labour a question Mr. Speaker? Since the Minister of Labour has a good faith bargaining clause in the Ontario Labour Relations Act which is quite explicit in its requirement, can he not use that clause as a route by which he can somehow intervene directly in the Fort Frances situation between the doctors at the medical clinic and the little CUPE local?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that clause is used very much. My understanding of it is that, if it is to be used, the instigation of action under that must be, at the commencement, on the request of one of the parties.

I think if one of the parties wants to lay a charge before the Ontario Labour Relations Board that the bargaining has not been done in good faith, or is not being done in good faith, it is free to do so. But I don’t think the minister can intervene and suggest that.

Mr. Lewis: I see. Am I right in understanding that they go to the board, the board gives approval to go to the courts, they go to the courts and the fine usually ranges from $100 to $500? Does the minister not agree that that is perhaps an unsatisfactory solution in this instance, and has he thought about it more over the last few days? Can the minister explain to the House how it is that, all of the laws of Ontario having been observed, the outcome is totally frustrated? Therefore what can the minister do to amend the legislation which would allow a resolution of this labour dispute, the like of which hasn’t been seen for some time in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, short of some sort of compulsory clause in there or a minimum agreement, I don’t think there is anything. As the member knows, British Columbia has tried the minimum agreement. I don’t think it has been that widely accepted. As I undertook to do the other day without committing myself to endorse it, I will investigate it.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Does the minister realize that what the Fort Frances case is saying to everyone in Ontario is that if there is a union which is certified under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and if one doesn’t wish to reach an agreement with them, there is nothing in the law of Ontario that requires one to do so, and the group of employees be damned? That’s what the Fort Frances case is saying. And the minister has to admit that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think that is the first case.

Mr. Lewis: It is the most dramatic case.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think there is the case that the hon. member for York South was mentioning the other day with Darrigo. The Darrigo case is similar.

Mr. MacDonald: Darrigo’s -- right at the moment.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Wouldn’t the minister agree that the management, in this case the doctors, have deliberately obstructed the reaching of a settlement and have deliberately been engaged in union-busting, because they have refused to meet with a legitimately certified union, except on two occasions for less than an hour each time since the strike began and even before that. Can’t the minister, through his legislation, at least force both parties to the bargaining table over the so-called negotiation period?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we can request people to come to the bargaining table and generally they do. Our people have been working on this matter and they are continuing to show an interest in it. As long as we are interested in it and trying to get the parties together, it is not my intention to make a statement coming out in praise or criticism of either side.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is there no way the minister can lay a charge or use the term “bad faith bargaining” against the doctors in this case?

An hon. member: Apparently not.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

TAKEOVER OF MAPLE LEAF MILLS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Has the takeover of Maple Leaf Mills by Norris Grain, an American-based corporation, been drawn to his attention? Has he looked at it in terms of the implications for prices and for other policies for Ontario, or for Canada for that matter?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not personally, Mr. Speaker, but I understand my staff have, because I heard some mention made of it the other day.

Perhaps while I am on my feet I might indicate that on the food study, I will be in a position to tender that, hopefully, within the next few days. If the House should rise, I will see that all those members who are interested get a copy of that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, could the minister make a report to the House on the Norris Grain takeover? Am I right in thinking that the foreign review board must not be operative in this area if that kind of takeover is now permitted -- I take it that is not in force yet -- and jeopardizes a very basic Canadian production company?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will take a look at it and get back.

AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN HOSTED BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Lewis: On that question, Mr. Speaker, to the Chairman of the Management Board: Can he table in the House the names of the 30 American businessmen who were hosted by government at Ontario Place as the government sought further investment from the United States in Canada? They were hosted jointly, I believe, by the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, that did not fall within the responsibility of my department. I think it should be directed, possibly, to the Treasurer.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, the names of the members of the on-site investment tour -- this is the second such tour we have had -- are available in booklet form and I will make sure the hon. member gets a copy.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. I have no further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

HEATH SURVEY CONSULTANTS LTD.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York South yesterday asked a question -- I will repeat it:

“Is it accurate that the government of Ontario has entered into a contract with Heath Survey Consult- ants Ltd. of London for work in relation to Union Gas Co. and is it also accurate that that contract or that arrangement of the government with Heath Survey was entered into after they had withdrawn from work during the course of the current strike situation?”

So far as I am able to determine, no part of the government, specifically neither the Ministry of Energy nor the safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has entered into any contract now, nor have they in the past, with Heath Survey.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, In view of the fact that yesterday the Metro social services committee adopted the report of the deputy commissioner in which he decries the new policies and seeks to have discretion at that level in applying their funding to the new policies, will the minister give that consideration to the Metro government or any other municipality which does not wish to follow the new policy in day care?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague: This government always has been and always will be responsive to concerns which are expressed to us and we will be most happy to listen to what they have to say.

Mr. Laughren: Unless children are involved.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education: In view of the recommendation of the Lowes commission to alter the weighting factors for special education and in view of the report of the Metro board that the spending ceilings fail to provide for the special education needs in Metro Toronto, is the minister willing to move before July 1 to make sure that those needs are met?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, these things will all be considered as we look at next year’s ceilings and weighting factors.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Can the minister give us any indication if the ministry is willing to pick up the total cost for the blind, the orthopaedic and the deaf children in the Metro school system?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered that question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

PLANNING ACT

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer: Would the Treasurer advise us what progress, if any, is being made in the major revision of the Planning Act, which was promised in the Throne Speech of March, 1973, particularly in view of the fact that many people believe that the Planning Act’s present provisions slow up the whole development process?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes sir, after quite some difficulty, we did appoint a director for the study. The appointment was discussed with and concurred in by the municipal liaison committee. That was not a necessity, but as a matter of courtesy and practicality I thought it was wise. All of this took some number of weeks or months. Not long afterwards the person chosen for that responsibility found he wasn’t able to do so, on his doctor’s orders, and our search has started all over again.

I am having difficulty, quite frankly, selecting a person who’s acceptable to the municipalities, my own officials and others who are interested in this matter. It seems that every name that comes up has some number of proponents and some number of opponents.

I would hope within the next week or two to make that selection; although it now occurs to me that on May 13, when I was in Thunder Bay, I promised an appointment at Queen’s Park to Hon. Robert Andras after July 8, when there may be quite a few experienced --

Mr. Foulds: He already has an appointment with his old Manpower office.

Hon. Mr. White: There may be quite a few experienced people from Ottawa looking for jobs, so perhaps that will solve our problem.

Mr. Breithaupt: There will be a lot more of the Treasurer’s friends than ours.

An hon. member: Mr. Stanfield.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer will have a lot of people looking for jobs.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: Is the minister considering Bob Stanfield? I think he’ll be available after that date. As it’s two and a quarter years since the Throne Speech promised a major revision --

Mr. Cassidy: What is the member for Downsview doing in 1975 then?

Mr. Singer: -- when can we somewhat reasonably expect that we will have a major new draft of the Planning Act?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When Ontario has a change in government.

Hon. Mr. White: The original estimation was two years, and then we wondered if it couldn’t be done in 18 months. Then Mr. H. I. Macdonald and I insisted it be done in 12 months and we were told that was impossible. So I would say about 18 months.

Mr. Singer: From now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

WAGES OF HANDICAPPED WORKERS

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increases he has announced in the Workmen’s Compensation pensions today and in the recent past for the minimum wage, will he undertake to investigate the wages paid to those handicapped workers, the employers of whom, under the Employment Standards Act, have been allowed to pay them less than the minimum wage -- including those in the industrial therapy workshops -- with a view to ensuring that their wages are at least in direct proportion to their productivity and the industrial wages paid for comparable work?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, yes. Other hon. members have requested that I should do the same thing in regard to handicapped people. They present a difficult problem. One argument is that if you raise them too high -- I’m sorry, I shouldn’t use the words “too high” -- but if you raise them they may price themselves out of the market. It is a problem that I will undertake to look at during the summer months.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on that: Is the minister implying that the wages already paid to the handicapped workers are greater than what their productivity is, in relation to the comparable wage in the industrial sector?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In some cases they may be and in some cases they may be too low. I’m not implying that they are greater, but they themselves and their associations are often the ones that are not anxious to have their wage rates increased. But it’s a problem and I will undertake to look at it during the summer.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? All right.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister considering or will he consider legislation, such as exists in Britain, in order to require every medium or large-size employer to employ a certain proportion of handicapped workers in order that handicapped workers have a role in the work force?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, and one of the members has requested that should be part of the review I have undertaken to do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.

RENT SUPPLEMENTS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

In view of the fact that the request for senior citizens’ housing in the city of Windsor has increased from 1,012 on Jan. 4 of this year to 1,123 as of June 3 this year, and in light of the fact that the minister is going to provide substantial numbers of senior citizens’ housing units in the community within the next year, would the minister consider looking into greatly expanding the rent supplement programme to those who now live in satisfactory accommodation but, because of financial reasons, cannot afford to pay the rentals?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it has not been the policy to supplement those who are in such situations. However, I am looking at that problem to see how widespread it is not only in Windsor but throughout the province, and to ascertain whether or not it would be feasible to enter into that type of programme.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

HOUSING IN WINDSOR AREA

Mr. Bounsall: In light of the minister’s statement today, which goes a long way to alleviating the shortage of senior citizen accommodation and some family accommodation, can we look forward in the near future to a statement which will deal with the greater shortage of family accommodation -- that is, two-bedroom accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say quite safely that in the programme which was announced today there will be more emphasis on the smaller family rental units on a rent-geared-to-income basis.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. MacDonald: Surrounded by non-returnable bottles.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

WAGE RATES FOR AMBULANCE MEN

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour regarding minimum wage regulations which exempt ambulance men: Why are those ambulance men who work for private ambulance companies kept below the minimum wage through being required or forced to be on duty, voluntarily, for many hours of over- time work without any pay?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know that they are; does the member mean at their homes on standby or actually in the ambulance garage? In the ambulance garage? I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, and I will make some inquiries.

Mr. Burr: Thank you.

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

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister contemplating any legislative action in respect to non-returnable bottles and other solid waste before the summer recess?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): It depends on how long the House will be sitting but I doubt if it will be before the recess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we will permit a supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: If the minister doesn’t deal with it in a legislative way before the summer recess, are there any measures which he proposes, other than legislative action, which will alleviate the problem throughout the summer months?

Hon. W. Newman: No. During the summer months I will be in my office and we will be studying this very actively.

MILLBROOK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister comment on the article in the current Newcastle Reporter that his ministry has botched the works for the village of Millbrook for at least another two years by losing the plans which have been sent to him twice?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We asked that lost week. That was last week’s question.

Mr. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know the question has already been asked in the House, I believe, by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good). I have already been in contact with the member for the riding, I will have a full report or a full answer to the question in the House on Monday, probably.

Mr. Shulman: I apologize. I was in Detroit.

Mr. MacDonald: Under escort.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

NEW JAILS IN METRO TORONTO

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services which may be indirectly connected also to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter). Has the minister anything to report as to the progress of the two new jails being built in Metropolitan Toronto to replace the major part of the Don Jail?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe that tenders were advertised for both these jobs this week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay is next, I believe.

EXPORT OF ETHYLENE

Mr. Stokes: A question of the Minister of Energy: Did his ministry file an intervention with the National Energy Board concerning Dow Chemical’s application to export 10 billion lb of ethylene over the next 10 years? And now that they plan to hear it in an ex- parte fashion, is the minister or the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) going to file an intervention with regard to those closed hearings?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not yet filed an intervention. I think I am to see it at 11 o’clock. It will be filed by Telex before -- I think the final time is the close of business this afternoon -- but, yes, we will be filing an intervention.

I think I can tell the member roughly what the position of the government is. To answer the second part of his question first, we are not dealing with the ex-parte nature of the hearing, I think the hon. member recognizes that this is a matter that has been before the board for some 2% years and has been the subject of extensive hearings. I think the ex-parte nature is not somewhat unusual; it is a form of expedited hearing with which we do not particularly quarrel a lot. I do not know whether the board would be elucidated in any new fashion by trooping all the lawyers back down to Ottawa again.

Essentially, what we are saying in the intervention is that our concerns as to the quantities of gas remain the same and that we are concerned about the export of natural gas. We recognize that the board has taken note of the situation, which has been contentious for some time, that ethylene exports do come under the control of the board, which we have advocated for some time.

Essentially, what we are saying -- and this is in lay language -- is that the board having found a surplus by a rather tortuous route, if I may put it that way, then we would support the decision of the board to allow the export to go ahead. Having said that, we have repeated what we have said in previous interventions, the last one being the gas pricing hearing which concluded a couple of months ago.

We have said that the board ought to undertake periodic reviews of export contracts. Even though the contracts may be signed in the case of gas for 20 years, the board should be reviewing them periodically -- whether that means once a year or once every two or three years -- to make sure that the interests of Canadians are still being looked after. Specifically, we have asked the board in this case to see whether the term of the firm export cannot be further shortened.

I must say to the member, since he has asked the question, that I am not altogether completely satisfied with our intervention and the facts surrounding it. We could make a case that perhaps the board should delay its decision until the new supply and demand hearings which the board is going to undertake in September; those interventions must be filed, I think, by Sept. 3. Perhaps the hon. member could make the argument that this should wait.

On the other hand, we are impressed with the fact that this has dragged on for 2% years. We are impressed with the fact that Dow and others say there is a critical need for ethylene in Sarnia. Somewhat reluctantly -- I will put it that way -- we have come to the conclusion in the intervention that it should be proceeded with, but with a number of safeguards built in. I am sorry I cannot be more specific than that.

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

FLEMINGDON WOODS

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. About a week ago the minister advised us, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, that he had intervened with the present owners of a Flemingdon Park condominium building to postpone the organization meeting of the new owners, who are the present occupants, until such time as they had had an opportunity to examine financial statements.

We have received advice that indeed the owners, namely Weinberg, Wallerstein and O’Shaughnessy, never did receive any communication from the minister to postpone the meeting, and since Tuesday is the deadline --

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure there must be a question coming sometime.

Mr. Deans: We would like to know how O’Shaughnessy got in there.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister intervene to give the people an opportunity to examine the debt that they will otherwise have to assume?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have never spoken personally to Mr. Weinberg, but I can assure the hon. member that several members of my staff, both in the minister’s office and in OHC itself, have been in constant communication with Mr. Weinberg, and he was asked to postpone the meeting. The first meeting, as I understand it, was boycotted by the people in the building. As a result, another meeting will be held and it’s been agreed to by the people in the building that they will, on that occasion, take over the ownership of the building.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why doesn’t the minister speak to O’Shaughnessy?

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

ROAD ACCESS TO NURSERY PROPERTY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister reviewed the problems of Tree Top Nurseries in Hope township near Port Hope? Does he agree that firm was a victim of government error when the company established along Highway 28 4% or five years ago? Is he now willing to give them access to that highway, in view of the fact that they came in before its designation as a controlled access highway?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed that particular situation and have had some correspondence with the owners of the facility.

I can tell the hon. member that a meeting was held in Port Hope last night at which, at my request, officials of the ministry attended. We have discussed the situation and the proposal that we have made to them is that we will, in fact, not allow access to the controlled access highway.

We’ve looked at it very carefully and we feel that it would be unsafe to permit commercial access at that particular point to that property. But we are prepared to absorb the cost in the ministry of providing access on the township road and providing that road for them. I do feel that there is a requirement on the ministry to provide them with the access that they would have had on the main highway. I cannot agree to their access on the controlled access highway but, as I said, we will provide the access for them from the township road, at the cost of the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

DRUG FILMS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is the Minister of Education aware of the concern of several prominent people in the province about the drug films produced by OECA? If he’s not, would he undertake -- I understand there was a telegram sent to him this morning -- to view those films and to talk to those people who have expressed a very deep concern about the usefulness of allowing those films to be showed in schools in Ontario?

Mr. Foulds: Shown.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes. I would be happy to view them and then comment, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t seen the films. I haven’t heard of any criticisms of the films.

Mr. Singer: What about the telegram?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to look into it.

Hon. W. Newman: Is the telegram from the member for Downsview?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING OPERATIONS

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I’m sure he is aware that on March 14 the Canadian Transport Commission granted a licence for two trucking firms to use our highways on Sunday -- which I understand, the Ontario government has appealed.

Mr. Speaker: There should be a question someplace there.

Mr. Germa: Will the minister undertake to get an interim injunction to restrain this order from the Canadian Transport Commission in order to protect us along the Highway 17 corridor this summer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that we have appealed that particular decision. The question of getting the injunction, quite frankly, would be in the hands of the Attorney General, and I have discussed that with him, and he is handling that aspect of it. My involvement with this particular problem is that we are the agency that deals directly with the CTC on behalf of the government. But as far as any legalities are involved, that would be done in the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. We have discussed it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

RETAIL SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer, if we can get his attention.

Hon. Mr. White: Oh, all right.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the provincial Treasurer giving consideration to the resolution passed by the city of London and endorsed by the city of Windsor, requesting that municipalities and public institutions be exempt from the payment of retail sales tax on all of the items outlined by the provincial Treasurer in the 1974 budget concerning retail sales tax exemptions?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, these and other recommendations and suggestions will be considered prior to the next budget.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I have a petition from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, which has been approved by the Clerk’s office.

“Honourable Madam, members of the Legislature, the provincial early childhood education committee of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation requests that proposed revisions to the regulations of the Day Nurseries Act concerning early childhood care and education be delayed until the proposed revisions can be properly studied by concerned groups, such as ours, and submissions made. The social development committee or any other appropriate committee could be designated to receive grievances and suggestions.”

It is signed by R. G. Des Dickson, executive assistant.

I also have, Mr. Speaker, from the Association for Early Childhood Education the following petition.

“Honourable Madam, members of the Legislature, we hereby present our humble petition in opposition to revisions in the regulations of the Day Nurseries Act to wit: For the following reasons, we the undersigned oppose the revisions and regulations governing provincial daycare services as announced June 4, 1974, by the Hon. Margaret Birch, Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

“1. The proposed new ratios have damaging implications for the quality of daycare in existing facilities and, in fact, ensure that children will receive only custodial care;

“2. We oppose the hiring of untrained persons to give primary care to children and call upon the Ontario government to maintain the qualifications of nursery teachers to a standard commensurate with their trust, the care and nurturing of infant children;

“3. The elimination of kitchens from the nurseries, we believe, will result in lower nutritional standards and will undermine the value of the daycare centre as a social environment.

“We deplore the lack of adequate daycare facilities in the Province of Ontario. We reject the decision to expand those urgently-needed facilities at the cost of the safety and the emotional and physical health of the children in Ontario.

“We humbly request such action by the House as follows: That we be heard by the social development committee or any other appropriate committee regarding these grievances.”

It is signed by Jane Forkery, vice-president, president-elect; Dorothy Gordon, certification chairman; Jennifer Hardacre, chairman, committee on advanced programme of studies.

It is accompanied by a substantial number of names in petition form and endorsed by the Community Day-Care Coalition, YMCA, Willowdale; Canadian Mothercraft; the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded; the Village Day Care Centre in Ottawa; the Chatham-Maycourt Day Care; Cradleship Creche in Toronto; Kingston day care, Kingston; St. Mary du Luce day care in Willowbank; Metro Social Planning Council; the action committee on day care, Ontario Welfare Council.

I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, this exceeds dramatically the range of protests which the Provincial Secretary for Social Development suggested this was confined to.

Mr. Laughren: It is undermining the entire daycare programme in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Mr. Hamilton, from the standing social development committee, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Ministry administration programme … $ 4,360,000

University support programme ……… 568,166,000

Colleges and adult education support programme ……………………………………………………. 263,084,000

Students affairs programme ............. 39,292,000

Cultural and general education programme …………………………………………………………51,492,000

Archives programme …………………………. 629,000

Hon. Mr. Winkler presented the annual report of the Civil Service Commission for the fiscal year 1973-1974.

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), presented the report of the Niagara Parks Commission for the fiscal year ending Oct. 31, 1973.

Hon. W. Newman: I wish to table the report of the Ontario task force on the human environment in response to the United Nations conference held at Stockholm, Sweden, in June, 1972.

The conference referred recommendations for guiding management of the human environment to governments for action by the nations of the world and set up a secretariat for initiating programmes and co-ordinating international environmental activity through the United Nations. In Canada, the federal government asked the provinces, through the federal-provincial committee of deputy ministers of the environment, to consider the recommendations within their areas of concern, and the report of the Ontario inter-ministerial task force is the result of that work. The recommendations of the task force have been conveyed to Ottawa and offered as a contribution to a Canadian framework for action in light of present environmental issues.

This is a report on the Ontario environment today and incorporates what has been accomplished up to now in its wisdom by the government of Canada. It incorporates recommendations on policies concerning the environment of the future. If accepted as a basis for future policy, it will be one of the first attempts by any jurisdiction anywhere to recognize the limitations of its resources and conserve them for future generations.

I would like also, Mr. Speaker, to thank all those people who have worked so hard on this report for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I have another report. On behalf of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman), I wish to table a report entitled, “Report of Task Force Onakawana on the Potential Environmental Effects of the Baie James Project on Ontario.”

Task Force Onakawana was set up in May, 1972, on instruction by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, to prepare a preliminary statement on the environmental impact of a proposed development of the Onakawana lignite deposits in northern Ontario. This report was completed in January, 1973, and released to the public one month later. Although there is little to link any proposal to develop the lignite deposits at Ona- kawana with the Baie James hydro-electric development project, the task force was asked to give consideration to the environmental impact on the Baie James project on Ontario.

In brief, the task force concludes that the Baie James project may not be a significant hazard to Ontario in environmental terms, but at the same time states that there is insufficient information on the environment of the James Bay area to make that statement with any conviction. The task force recommends that the government of Ontario set up a small watching group to maintain contact with the development, and this is being done.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes the Toronto area transit operating authority and sets out its objects, powers and duties. In the report prepared by the steering committee, appointed to develop an implementation plan for the creation of a transit operating authority for the Toronto-centred region, it was recommended that the geographic boundaries for the authority should encompass the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham.

The councils of Metropolitan Toronto and the councils of the regional municipalities of Peel and York have adopted resolutions supporting the establishment of the authority. Although the council of the regional municipality of Durham did not support the inclusion of their region in the authority, they are now reconsidering their position. I personally believe that once the authority becomes operative they will wish to be actively participating in obtaining improved inter-regional and regional transit for this area.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification, does the minister intend to proceed with this bill in this coming week or will it be held over to the fall?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that will be entirely up to the House leader, but I would hope that the bill could be proceeded with perhaps next week.

Mr. MacDonald: It is going to be a long week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The regions are all against it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On the contrary, all the regions are not against it.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The region of York.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT

Hon, Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll be lucky if we’re up next week at all.

An hon. member: Let’s do that then.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We’re full-time now.

Mr. Lewis: That’s fine, but at least tell us. Don’t set targets for this Friday or next Tuesday. We’ll be here until we get the business done.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve been full-time and nothing is happening in this place.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Come off it.

Mr. Cassidy: There wasn’t a bill to be seen on the order paper.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It is completely irresponsible to bring these bills in now. We cannot even get them to committee.

Mr. Cassidy: How can we get to standing committee --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The government makes a mockery out of the Legislature. How can we get standing committees to discuss these? The government has no respect for the members at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It’s just chaos.

Mr. Cassidy: This isn’t parliamentary at all.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t believe I have anything to add at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification. Is the minister going to allow this bill to go to the standing committee in order that those groups directly involved in the request for compensation alterations can present their views to legislative members?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s time for it and as a matter of fact --

Mr. Lewis: Exactly. That’s the way the government does everything around here.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I would have liked to but I don’t think there is time. I would hope it would move through quickly.

Mr. Laughren: Did the hon. member for Grey South (Mr. Winkler) hear that?

Mr. Speaker: Before we deal with the orders of the day I should like to point out to the hon. members that our present group of pages is serving what might possibly be the last day for some of them. Some may not be back next week when we convene; some may and some may not.

Mr. Deans: How about the week after?

Mr. Speaker: However, at the end of each of their terms of duty here it is the custom to read into the record the names of these pages and I would like to do that at this moment. They have served us very well. I should say that these names will be appearing in Hansard and we will be sending each one of our pages a copy of Hansard later on.

Kevin Burns of Toronto; Jim Collins of Cobourg; Mark Dymond of Toronto; Mike Gregory, Ridgetown; David Harvey, Orillia; John Hoddinott, Rexdale; Valerie Kates, Willowdale; Doug Keyes, Scarborough; Ted Lauzon, Toronto; Patricia Lewis, Peterborough; Jerry McGroarty, Agincourt; Doug Macdonald, Ridgetown; Karen Mair, Chatham; Julie Maynerick, Toronto; Donna Meyer, Hamilton; Heather Muir, Cayuga; Tricia Newman, Windsor; Martin Welter, Agincourt; Carrol Whynot, Toronto; and Robert Wright of Toronto.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, might I comment on that announcement? I listened attentively to the names and addresses of those pages and I failed to hear one name or address from northern Ontario. I wonder if you would consider doing something to see that kids in the far reaches of the province get a little more opportunity of this kind of experience.

Mr. Speaker: I would say to the hon. member if he would make a few inquiries he will find we have had students here from all across the province, from some Indian groups in far northern Ontario. We can only choose the pages from those who send in applications.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 91, An Act to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act.

Bill 98, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, 1972.

Clerk of the House: The 19th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 89, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Ottawa Centre had the floor.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I was on my feet last night when the debate adjourned, Mr. Speaker, and I almost feel like apologizing to the members for speaking so often toward the end of every session, but I realize it’s the fault of the government because of the way in which the business of this House is run.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): We can’t shut the member up, that’s all.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems to us that the bills that are coming forward at the end of the session are invariably important. Some of them are very important. Some of them, like the bill of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) last night don’t involve a great amount of money but they do involve an important aspect of principle. They deserve the couple hours of debate which we gave to that bill last night. This bill which we just got today on the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act is a very major change in the structuring of public transit in the Toronto area. It was announced with great fanfare by the government as a proposal about six or 10 months ago. Discussions have been under way but there has been nothing before this Legislature. Then they come in at the last minute with a very thick bill, a bill which requires, in our view, consultation with the various municipalities that are involved and it requires also reference to a standing committee in order that anybody who wishes to comment on it may have that opportunity.

It is the same case for the bill we have before us today. One of the things I am going to ask this minister is that the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act amendments be referred to standing committee so that in particular the sections relating to the housing policy --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is the minister going to do that? There are groups all over Metro Toronto that want to speak to this bill and put their position.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister says pshaw. In the last two weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have had Bills 83, 84, 85, 66, 88 and so it goes. There are about 25 bills on the order paper, plus another two or three introduced today. This is major legislation, Mr. Speaker, which is not put into the legislative hopper early. It always comes on late.

We have been tantalized by suggestions from the backbenchers on the other side that the House is going to pack it in. I must confess a week or so ago I thought with a sense of relief it was nice to see that the legislation for which I was responsible as critic was just about through and that I could have a placid end of session and perhaps concentrate a bit on the election campaign up in my riding, rather than sticking around this place. But it was not to be.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is a pity the member is not there.

Mr. Cassidy: I ask the Speaker, I ask the minister, I ask the minister’s boss and I ask the people sitting here in the gallery who came down here to learn about parliamentary government, when is this government going to start to respect the rights of this Parliament? When is it going to start to respect the rights of the people of the province who want to know what is happening and who want to have a reasonable opportunity to participate, to make their opinions felt, to write letters, to send telegrams, to testify, to come before standing committees, to understand and to know what is happening? There is no way they can do it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre now would confine his remarks to the principle of Bill 89.

Mr. Cassidy: I am speaking to the principle of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, of whether or not order and decorum in this handling of business will be respected by this government or not, and right now it isn’t being respected by this government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the member would confine himself to the principle of Bill 89.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, I think I have said enough about that, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We all agree.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He has said enough. Period.

Mr. Cassidy: For the people who are watching, and I will speak a bit to the galleries right now, I hope that some of them, before they came down here, spent a bit of time in the classroom talking about the way in which the legislative process is meant to work.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering again if the hon. member will stay with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: I am not talking about this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. Because this particular bill introduces a totally new principle.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Unless the member is speaking to the principle of this bill, I would rule he is out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry. I am speaking to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am using as my example the housing policy clauses in the bill which allow Metropolitan Toronto to dictate housing policy at the area municipality level.

That was introduced into this Legislature with no advance warning last Thursday. It was too late for Metro council even to discuss it at its meeting on Tuesday. They and Toronto, North York, Scarborough and the other boroughs in Metro Toronto have been presented with a fait accompli. That is not the way parliamentary business ought to work. It is not the way it works in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster. It is not the way it works in our Canadian Parliament up in Ottawa. I just wish that one of these days this government would understand what the process is all about.

If I can recapitulate very briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the parts of the bill that I was discussing last night and particularly the section related to housing policy, it is wrong for this government to accede to the request of Chairman Godfrey. It is wrong for this government and Chairman Godfrey to weasel around the fact that a request was made. The decision of the minister to accept that request simply undermines the co-operation which is essential to achieve housing goals in this city, and if I can read from the report of the Metro mayors one phrase which I put on the record last night, they said:

“To suggest that Metro must approve targets for housing and if necessary force building, is to suggest a direct path to the destruction of the two-tier system of metropolitan government.”

Well that’s what we have, Mr. Speaker. This government, at Chairman Godfrey’s request, is heading in the direction of the destruction of a two-tier pattern of government that we have in Metropolitan Toronto.

I can say that one of the conclusions that I draw from this whole particular exercise is the danger, now writ large, of having a chairman of a regional council who is appointed rather than elected at large. The government has backed down repeatedly from having an elected chairman in Metro council for fear that his power will be too great. I’m worrying about his sensitivity to people in the area and I’m worried about his ability to represent everybody in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Chairman Paul Godfrey clearly represents himself. One suspects that he still has allegiance to some of the people -- the electorate in North York -- who originally put him on to the Metro council. But when there comes an issue to which a politician with the leadership potential of the chairman of the metropolitan government ought to be sensitive, and it doesn’t come from his old bailiwick of North York, then Chairman Godfrey is completely insensitive, and this is what worries me in particular when you give him the powers that will be given to the Metro chair- man under the housing policy section in this bill. We need an elected chairman, or an elected mayor, call it what you want, in Metro government. We need that now, Mr. Speaker, and as far as I’m concerned you can apply that to the other regions as well. This system of having an appointed chairman, appointed from within, is dangerous and it means that the needs and wishes of a large portion of the population will frequently be ignored. It’s an undemocratic system which is being created by the government.

I want to say something else about the housing policy features of this bill as well, and I’m sorry that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) isn’t here, because the principle that it creates -- that is, that a regional municipality such as Metropolitan Toronto can create housing policy and shove it down the throats of area municipalities if they don’t care to agree -- that principle, presumably, would apply to other regional municipalities as well.

Now we have a very dangerous and upsetting situation here, where the Minister without Portfolio directly responsible for municipal affairs, and the hard-line Minister of Housing from Ottawa-Carleton, together are grossly undermining the efforts of the Treasurer (Mr. White) over the last two years to gain the confidence and the co-operation of municipalities.

Partisan comments aside, the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee of Ontario is doing good and useful work. It was a dead letter, it wasn’t functioning as an effective body, before this Treasurer came into office and said, “Okay, I’m going to meet with them regularly and I’m going to make it work,” and make it work he has. While I can look at it with an objective eye and say that it could do far more, there is no question that the municipal officials and the PMLC are very pleased with the kind of access to the provincial government which they now have through those monthly meetings. It is the kind of access they never had before.

On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, the PMLC has proven useful for municipalities to put their points to the provincial government and to win them. Land banking is one case in point. It’s taken a year or more for the PMLC to persuade the provincial government that municipal powers of land-banking should be greatly expanded, and we’ve just done that in amendments to the Housing Development Act, following month after month of pressure from the PMLC, discussion about the principles and delay at the provincial level.

In the case of Toronto’s request for demolition control, the PMLC was useful there, in addition to the other channels that were used, in persuading this minister and the government to grant generalized powers of demolition control, which are coming up for debate within the next couple of days.

As far as the housing policy question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the idea of having housing policy statements while it was NDP policy several years ago became government policy only very recently. And the Minister of Housing said, “We are going to have a housing action programme. We will give funds. We will give interest-free loans and things like that.” The amounts aren’t very great and the programme is pretty picayune but, nevertheless, the condition for it was that there be housing policy statements by municipalities.

That idea was a good one, and is a good one, Mr. Speaker. The idea that municipalities, in addition in trying to outline their environmental goals and their planning goals and so on, outline on an annual basis, year after year, their housing goals -- that they stop and think about housing -- is an excellent idea. We welcome that.

But it’s very new and it’s particularly difficult to see how it is going to work in areas where there are two levels of responsibility, such as in Metropolitan Toronto; in regional Ottawa; in the regional municipality of Waterloo, Sudbury, or what have you. And there are 10 regional municipalities.

The way in which that co-operation between the two tiers of government should work -- both of which have got some responsibility for housing -- was legitimately a subject that should have gone before the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. But, of course, that decision has been anticipated by this decision of the government, in conjunction with Chairman Godfrey, about what they are going to do. And that, apparently, is the precedent for the other municipalities as well.

What use is it? What use is it for the PMLC to come along and say, “Look, we don’t like it that way. We want to try the co-operative route”? Because the co-operative route has been simply obliterated by what is happening right here.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, under Ontario planning law and under the planning regime which is in force in regional municipalities across the province, where a regional municipality which has an official plan -- I don’t think any have yet -- approved, signed, sealed and delivered, and so on, then the lower tier of area municipalities will be compelled to bring their official plans into line with that of the regional municipality.

Now, the principle involved there -- which, incidentally, is also mentioned in other sections of this bill -- is something with which we are familiar in Ontario law under the Planning Act, where there is a joint planning board or a county planning board, and where there are subsidiary planning boards in local municipalities. If there is a county plan or a joint plan, then the subsidiary planning boards must bring their plans into line with the upper tier. Now, that’s okay.

The difference between what happens in planning, Mr. Speaker, and what is proposed in housing, is like night from day. Because in planning there is an elaborate series of safeguards to ensure that there is public participation, public consultation, and that the municipalities involved give very lengthy and careful consideration to what’s being done. And then, when it’s left the local level, it must be cleared through the minister and, if there are objections, through the Ontario Municipal Board.

That’s the process through which an official plan must go if it is to be approved by a regional municipality, or if it is to be approved in a joint planning area, or if it is then to be imposed or superimposed on the plans of an area municipality or on the plans of a subsidiary planning area. I hope that the minister follows what I am saying there.

There are no such safeguards at all when it comes to the question of the housing policy procedure as proposed in this particular bill. For that matter, neither is there any definition of what housing policy statements are going to be. The minister runs the gamut there; he runs the range. The Minister of Housing has said that a housing policy statement can be just two or three pages. If it’s in some small township with a couple of thousand people, it probably can be confined to a couple of pages.

I think that the minister has somewhat naively thought that Metro Ottawa or Metro Toronto or regional Waterloo could also make a housing policy statement within a couple of pages. But that’s pretty difficult. In fact, when it came to regional Metro Toronto making its statement of housing policy, it came up with a document which has got a total of 100 pages and three or four appendices. It is as long as most official plans, Mr. Speaker, and it is as detailed.

But there is no public participation process in creating this housing policy which can be as long and as detailed as an official plan. There is no process of consultation. There is no process for formal hearings. There is no process for sending it to a planning board. There is no process for sending it to the Ontario Municipal Board if the public wishes to lodge objections. The only procedure through which it apparently goes is that it goes through the council and to the Minister of Housing.

The Minister of Housing -- and I suspect probably rightly -- has got a prime interest right now; that is, to try to do something about housing. I don’t think he is doing a very good job, but that is his prime interest.

The Treasurer and his sidekick, the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine) are the ones who are responsible for the framework of municipal government and for ensuring that the initiatives of the Minister of Housing just as the initiatives of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) or any other minister whose work impinges on municipalities, fit within the whole framework of local government.

It is up to the Treasurer and his assistant to ensure that we don’t simply throw the principles of local government out the window in the efforts to get clean water, better sewers, better transportation or better housing. We just don’t throw these things out. We don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Yet that is what’s happening in this particular case.

It is happening against promises which have been made by the Minister without Portfolio for municipal affairs himself in a speech last November to a municipal administrators’ association. Specifically, he referred to the fact that some of the programmes and activities of TEIGA were being transferred to the new Ministry of Housing. Then he went on to say: “And our ministry will be working closely with regional and local governments to establish housing priorities and objectives for each part of the province.”

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to read from that kind of a promise, of working closely, that the ministry intended to work co-operatively and not by fiat. But what is happening is that the Ministry of Housing and Metro council will have the power to give orders; and, by extension, any regional council, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Housing, will have the power, not to work closer with local municipalities and not to try to understand their problems, but to give orders.

We had an example of the attitude of the Minister of Housing just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when he launched a direct and personal attack on the mayor and council of Scarborough for failing to co-operate with the housing action programme. It happens --and the Minister refused to recognize this -- that Scarborough has had the largest share of public housing in Metropolitan Toronto, year after year, over the past decade. It happens that Scarborough has also been absorbing 10,000 to 15,000 new residents, and that it has built a lot of housing for people on low and moderate incomes. It is only in the last couple of years that things have got out of whack in Scarborough.

One of the reasons that people in Scarborough have been pressuring their politicians about public housing is the fact that Scarborough has done so much over the last few years. And it happens that Scarborough’s mayor, Paul Cosgrove, has indicated that he is willing to be statesman-like about assuming Scarborough’s responsibilities, but he is not willing to have his borough forced, at the point of a gun, to do things that it has found unacceptable and difficult to accept in the past.

As somebody who worked on this housing policy for Metro told me just the other day, Paul Godfrey and his assistants in the field of housing -- Donald Richmond, who used to work for the provincial government, and John Kruger -- could have sat down with Mayor Cosgrove of Scarborough and said: “Look, let’s talk about these housing targets. How many senior citizen apartments can you take, to start with?”

Well, nobody objects to senior citizen apartments, so that would have been rather easy.

“Now, what about family stuff? Okay, you have a lot of large projects. You are fed up with them. You want infill housing. You want projects of less than 100 units. Can you take eight or nine of those projects, rather than one or two, if we play it that you are avoiding the ghettos that we have had in the past?” This is the kind of approach that should have been taken.

“Now, there are new projects going up in your borough. Can we get some of those to be socially assisted housing? What about HOME?” The minister’s statement the other day ignored the fact that if it weren’t for Malvern, there would be no HOME lots going in Metro Toronto at all. There has certainly been co-operation there now, but none of that came through.

The attitude of the Minister of Housing suggests he shares the kind of insensitivity which was displayed by Metro Chairman Paul Godfrey in seeking this legislation and in seeking these powers. Frankly, I just feel a bit of despair about this whole situation because the Minister of Housing and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine) are undoing all the co-operative goodwill which had been created over the last year and was being created over the past couple of years by the Treasurer.

I want to move, Mr. Speaker, to several parts of the bill which have been discussed by the Metro Council and were requested by its members from the province. As is probably clear from my speech so far, because the major portion of the bill, in terms of the number of sections, has been requested and approved and worked out publicly in consultation with the Metro Toronto council, the Metro Toronto government, we are going to have to support the bill on second reading. I tell the minister we will fight the sections on housing in particular with everything we can because we believe those sections should be rejected and left to one side. Therefore, we will be fighting those at the committee stage.

Perhaps I can deal with one other section which wasn’t in the requests from Metro council and that is the section referring to the chief administrative officer. The folly there was that couldn’t wait until it had been requested by Metro council. The process is objectionable and we reject it and will probably vote against the section for those particular reasons.

The actual request parallels the creation of the post -- or the powers to create the post -- of chief administrative officer in many other regions across the province and if Metro council wanted that, that’s okay. I might disagree with their choice of John Kruger but nevertheless that is within their autonomy and their responsibility. It is the process which is objectionable and not what’s being done.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Why doesn’t the member like John Kruger?

Mr. Cassidy: If John Kruger put Paul Godfrey up to what’s happening right now, I am very upset by it.

Interjection by an hon. member,

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. The funny thing is, as I said last night -- I will say this to the Premier since he’s here -- when it came to devising the Metro housing policy, I think John Kruger had a pretty positive kind of effect. It’s just that he doesn’t understand the way in which a representative democratic government ought to work and that’s what worries me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think he does.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe he understands it but rejects it. There is a real danger which is arising here. The Premier has been around in this place for --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Where are the rest of the NDP members?

Mr. Cassidy: They are down in the committee right now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They can’t stand to listen to his speech. They just left.

Mr. Kennedy: He is the only member of the NDP present.

Mr. Cassidy: I am quite capable of handling myself. The Premier came in to listen to me; I am quite flattered by that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s a judgement that only the member would make.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bill changes the representation of Metro council in order to bring it more closely into line with representation by population, a principle I would commend to the Premier in reference to the redistribution being proposed by the electoral boundaries commission. Where formerly Toronto had 12 of the 31 members on Metro council and where it had five of the 11 members on the executive committee, in future it will have 12 out of 36 on the council and four out of a rather unwieldy large 14 on the executive committee of the Metro council.

If I can try to engage the Premier in particular about what’s happening here? I think it pertains to the fact that simultaneously we are changing the basis of representation within Metro and we are also being asked to transfer some pretty important powers to the Metropolitan level of government.

I question, Mr. Speaker, whether now is the time we should be passing still more power to Metro Toronto. To Metro Peel, Metro Halton, Metro Hamilton, Metro Ottawa possibly, because those are regions which are still enjoying very rapid growth -- they are still experiencing very rapid growth. They have the sewer, water, arterial roads and transit kind of problems which Toronto had back in the 1950s but now we have a metropolitan federation here in Toronto, where most of the land is built up. I think that Scarborough is the only borough with any substantial amount of land still to be developed. There are pockets in North York and Etobicoke, but basically Metro is filled out to its boundaries everywhere except in the eastern sector.

Metro has matured. It doesn’t need those overwhelming powers it needed once in order to equalize the costs. The suburban boroughs now have a much better balance of industrial, commercial and residential assessment than they had during their era of very rapid growth. It’s time to reconsider whether you want to continue to make Metro into a supercity of 2 1/4 million people, or whether it isn’t possible to either decentralize or at least stabilize some of the powers at the local level, where people can get a better handle on what’s happening.

This is particularly germane, Mr. Speaker, because of the tendency of the newer boroughs simultaneously to depend less and less on the core of the city and to be willing -- which they’ve been in the past -- to simply put it to downtown Toronto. There’s a tendency, which I’ve spoken about in the past in this Legislature, for suburban legislators, and suburban voters for that matter, at whatever level of government, to be ignorant or to overlook the needs of people in core areas. I happen to represent one and I know the situation in Ottawa. I know that it’s very similar when you try and talk about inter-city issues here in Toronto.

Two-thirds of Metro council is going to represent the boroughs in the new council created by this legislation, after Jan. 1 of next year. It’s very easy for those boroughs to gang up on Toronto, and that’s one reason why one must be careful about transferring still more powers to the Metro level.

In the past, Toronto had a kind of arbitrary form of protection because of the fact that it was over-represented, particularly on the executive committee of Metro Toronto. It was over-represented and, therefore, had a certain capacity to influence or to block things that might hurt it. That doesn’t exist any more.

But I have to ask the government whether it seriously wants the inner city to be overwhelmed, or whether it shouldn’t leave more powers at the local level -- as, for example, in areas of housing or in the area of planning -- rather than leaving those decisions to the suburban boroughs who don’t give a damn if their expressways overwhelm downtown Toronto, who don’t give a damn if the office construction in the core of Toronto -- which has been permitted under the unofficial Metro plan and with the encouragement of the province, and for that matter with the encouragement of the old-time city councils -- already exceeds the targets that were made, I think, for 1985 or 1990 in the Toronto-centred region plan. They don’t mind, and yet Toronto is going to have to bear the consequences of that.

One of the reasons for a need now to elect the Metro chairman is so that the Metro chairman in particular can reflect the interests of all of his region and not just the area from which he was originally elected, or not just people from the suburban boroughs who have the overwhelming weight on the Metropolitan Toronto council.

Mr. Speaker, the Metro council has asked to remove the citizen appointments to the planning board and make it into a committee of Metro council. That is their right. That’s been a tendency. It has certain dangers, particularly because of the kind of work load which is borne by councillors at the metropolitan level of government here in Toronto these days.

As the Speaker himself, as a former member of Metro council, must realize, one week it’s Metro meetings down at city hall and the next week it’s city meetings, if it’s a city politician, and I presume the next week it’s a borough meeting if it’s a North York or a Scarborough politician. The meetings are incessant. There are 20, 25, 30 hours a week of meetings alone, and for 10 or 10% months of the year, rather than the seven or 7% months that this place sits. Unlike this place, it’s much more difficult for the members of Metro council to stay away from meetings in the way, say, that the Premier and members of the cabinet can often go about their business outside of the Legislature while backbenchers or other ministers are debating legislation or debating estimates here in the House. You don’t have that kind of relief in Metropolitan Toronto government.

When you come down to the creation of a planning committee which will be charged over the next three or four years with creating or updating the unofficial official plan for Metro Toronto --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could say something about that word really.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Oh, please do. The Premier is entitled to speak.

Mr. Cassidy: -- you ask yourself, where are these politicians going to find the time to relate to the public, to hold public hearings, to get around the various boroughs and various parts of Metro Toronto, and to do a really decent job?

How can they do it when they haven’t got enough time right now? What are you going to do when men are working 60, 70 and 80 hours a week at their governmental tasks? When there is virtually no time left for them to do even the kind of more pleasant chores of politicking; the opening of senior citizen homes or computer factories -- I think the Premier opened one this week. Where is the time to get around their own constituencies in order to see people who help them get elected, or whom they hope to represent; for the tuning in to what people are thinking; for the ombudsman function which people are asked to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t open a computer centre.

Mr. Cassidy: If anything, Mr. Speaker, the job right now of a Metro Toronto councillor is heavier than the average workload borne by a member of this Legislature --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to open a National Cash Register plant this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and I would say in many cases it equals the workload borne by a front-bencher in one of the opposition parties or is borne by many of the ministers within the cabinet. And that is without taking on this extra role of planning, and of being a member of the planning board.

Now there is no guarantee here that the citizen input -- the limited citizen input -- which was permitted with the planning board that existed before, will be continued. The whole planning process is in danger of being completely cut off.

This Legislature, the minister, the Treasurer, and Metro council itself, need to be thinking of other ways by which citizen input can be continued. I suspect, that having disbanded the citizen planning board of Metro Toronto, we are going to have to find some means of recreating it by a form of citizen advisory bureau or boards, which do very much the same thing as the planning board tries to do right now. I would wish, in fact, that something was written into the Act to make sure that the power did exist, so that Metro council could use it.

The second point is that in 1966 -- 13 years after the creation of Metro -- its official plan was finally prepared, but it was never sent on to the minister. Metro has gone ahead with an unofficial official plan for that period of time. Part of the reason is the inflexibility of the planning process under official plan legislation in the province. But it was wrong that there shouldn’t be an official plan. It is equally wrong, Mr. Speaker, that Metro should continue to benefit from special treatment -- unlike any other region of the province -- by being allowed to have powers to create an official plan in this Act without any deadline.

Every region that has been created, with the exception of Metro Toronto, Mr. Speaker, has been given a deadline for the creation of its official plan. Some haven’t met the deadline -- and Metro Ottawa is two years behind right now. Nevertheless, people are trying; we are working toward that goal. But Metro Toronto has never had a goal set down for itself. And having no goal, it hasn’t bothered to try and meet it. In fact, it sat on an official plan that could have been sent to the minister a long time ago.

The fourth point about the planning powers, Mr. Speaker, is something which I hope to get to in committee stage. I am worried about a particular requirement in the Act that says that zoning, restricted area bylaws, will be forced to comply with the Metro official plan. I think this deserves careful consideration, because the ramifications need to be spelled out.

If what it means is that you can’t zone as industrial an area which was designated residential in an official plan, obviously there is no particular problem. I haven’t had a chance to explore all of the other legislation, but it may be that there are parallels and that this is quite a normal kind of thing.

I am worried, though, that you can get into a situation where politicians from one end of Metro will compel people at another end of Metro to zone to very high densities contained in an official plan to forego innovative housing, to forego innovative combinations of land uses, because that is not permitted under the Metro official plan. I am really worried about that kind of compulsion coming in. If it were to occur, that would mean yet another very significant transfer of planning powers to the higher level. And this is what worries a lot of people, not just in Toronto, but in other municipalities in the Metro region.

Now, that brings me to malls and the rather interesting decision of the province not to permit any restrictions of hawking or begging, or things like that, on the mall.

I would be interested to find out, in the committee stage, why the minister wants that. Why does he want to tie Metro’s hands in those ways? We will reserve judgement until that time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we will support the bill but we will oppose the section which gives housing policy control to Metro without it being discussed in Metro council beforehand, without any request from Metro council, without any public debate, in arbitrary, abrupt fashion where Paul Godfrey is calling orders for the province.

Since the Premier is in the House right now, Mr. Speaker, I would plead with the Premier.

The Metro council tried to open this issue by a vote of 17 to 10. It was one short of the two-thirds majority needed. Most of those 17 votes at Metro council on Tuesday, I understand, were cast by people who wanted time to consider the question whether Metro council’s housing policy powers should be mandatory and should be applied in a compulsory fashion to housing policy actions and bylaws passed by the area municipalities within Metro.

The feeling of most of those 17 people who are competent, qualified politicians -- experienced men whom the Premier would respect -- and the majority of the Metro council, as I understand it, was that it is too abrupt. They do not like the way Godfrey has gone about it and they want to try the route of co-operation and consultation.

I would say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, he knows that in government, when one tries to do something new, where possible one does try to use the route of co-operation and consultation rather than shoving things down people’s throats. I can say, as a Socialist, and having been in this Legislature for the last couple of years, that I have learned a bit about that, too. We as a government would try to gain our policy objectives by getting people to co-operate with us rather than trying to make them do it at the point of a bill or by the use of government power in a sort of unyielding and overweening way.

The government here is doing it differently and I would really plead with the Premier himself. Withdraw the sections on housing policy. Let the Metro mayors and councils try to work co-operatively; see whether it works. Give it six months if he is not willing to give it more time. If it does not work, if nothing is happening, if Paul Godfrey and his people are totally frustrated by the inability to get along with the local councils and Metro by November or December, bring back the section then; Metro council will undoubtedly support it at that time.

But give these politicians and these councils a chance to try the route of co-operation and consultation. Give them a chance to see whether they cannot use their alleged autonomy and alleged decision-making powers to decide how they will best apply the policies toward which the province is moving now in the field of housing, and interpret them and make them fit into their own local circumstances, rather than shoving them down their throats.

Withdraw this section, Mr. Speaker. I say this to the minister and to the Premier. Withdraw this section and do not poison Metro government. Do not poison the federation which has worked so successfully for 21 years. Do not poison the federation at a time when the basis of representation is being so substantially changed. Do not lead, as the Metro mayors themselves said. Do not risk the destruction of a two-tier federation which has been a model and the envy of municipal authorities in five continents.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were quite pleased when this Act came in to see some of the adjustments to representation which are taking into account the matter of population. In a small area like Metro, it is quite feasible to have the population represented by appropriate numbers of representatives. This does not always apply in other parts of the province where, because of remote areas, there is great difficulty of access but certainly, in this area, we support that in principle.

There are other aspects to this bill which are concerning us greatly. One of the major changes which has been made but has not gone far enough is that of the election of the chairman and the members of council. It still does not call for the election of the chairman from the whole Metropolitan area at large.

The reason, I suppose, that this step has not been taken is the continued presentation of the argument that it’s going to cost too much; that it’s impossible to have an election on such a broad scale. But when one looks at the actual cost of the campaign for the mayor of Toronto and the communication area we are dealing with, where we have newspapers that well cover the area, as well as radio, television and other means of communication that enable us to really cover the area thoroughly with the same expenditure -- one realizes that, in actual fact, the campaign for a Metro chairman would not be much different in total cost than the one for mayor of the city of Toronto.

I feel that the whole attitude of a chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto council would be far different if that chairman knew that he did not have to be accountable only to his fellow council members, who can divide the responsibility for any action he may take and say to their constituents: “There really isn’t much we can do about it, because there are other members of council who will support him.” When that chairman has to be accountable to the electorate as a whole, he is going to take a far different attitude towards his responsibilities.

We are also concerned by the fact that this bill provides for the appointment of a chief administrative officer in Metro. Those of us who have been under regional government have known what that produces. That brings about very strong leadership at the regional level -- in this case the Metropolitan level -- leadership that is overwhelming to the members of the council itself because of the combined force of not only the chairman, and in this case the chief administrative officer, but also the various commissioners. It is very difficult, as a result, for the representatives on the council to take the leading role that they should take in responding to their local needs as to what should be done and what should be done in the interests of the people.

I would hope that this minister, who I think is a man with great experience in local autonomy and local government, is anxious to do what the people have an opportunity to direct. I would think that this minister would resist such a move as this, because he would recognize that sometimes efficiency can’t be measured in the speed with which decisions are made and with which actions are taken. Efficiency can be measured in a democratic system to the extent to which people, as a part of the system, feel they are able to share, to contribute and to participate in the decisions.

Sometimes democracy may seem to be rather inefficient. I certainly found in my business experience, as well as in my political experience, that in the long run, decisions taken by the participation of people in a very open and practical way are far more effective than reducing the opportunity for citizens to contribute to decisions.

When we see in a bill like this the appointment of a chief administrative officer in Metro, we can see that indeed the trend here is to put more power at the centre, more opportunity for a dictatorship to take over in the end. That is what we don’t want. Metro Toronto is made up of many neighbourhoods, and one of the reasons we have so far been spared the problems that have been experienced by major cities south of the border is that we did have a two-tier system of government; indeed, that in many of the lower tiers, we had people who were very responsive and very aware of the neighbourhoods and the need to preserve the identity of neighbourhoods.

As we are developing this Metro council form and trying to improve it, I’m sorry to see this trend towards the strengthening of the centre and more opportunity for quick, efficient, cold, hard decisions but less opportunity for strong representation at the neighbourhood level. I would hope that we would be aware of New York’s sad experience in this regard, where that city, because of its centralization of government, had most unfortunate experiences, not only in government, with riots and things like that, but in their school system, where the large efficient centralized control broke down because it had no communication, it provided no opportunity for local people to do what they felt was in their best interests or for local people to participate, through their representatives on the central organizations, in decisions that would be affecting the whole area.

People often say that if you give too much power to the local area you get parochial attitudes and that people refuse to consider the interests of others. I don’t think that is the case. I don’t think, if we believe in the democratic system, really believe in it, that we can believe that is the case. I think anyone who has endeavoured to work out problems by involving citizens, by providing them with the opportunity of looking at a total scene and coming to decisions that are of benefit to the overall community, won’t make parochial decisions. I find they do make very good, sensible adjustments to ensure that the overall good is achieved.

So I am disappointed that we have in this bill provision for a chief administrative officer. We think the experience in the regions shows that this is not a good move. There is plenty of opportunity, as there has been in the past, for a chairman such as Gardiner and Allen, strong leaders in themselves, to work with their commissioners, to operate efficiently, and there is no need for us to set up a further person unresponsive, because it is not an elected office, to the people who would be electing him. I certainly regret to see that in this bill, and we certainly oppose that and shall oppose it in committee.

I am disappointed also to see this provision for a surcharge on water rates for Metro, because this continues to practice that we have seen around the province where there is not uniformity in the cost of the supply of such an essential item. We have provided, in our Ontario Hydro scheme around the province, reasonably uniform rates from one part of the province to the other, and surely the cost of services to the local area should be as uniform as possible if we are to avoid a distortion in where development will occur. I certainly have always encouraged this government to have uniform rates available to municipalities for the revision of water supply and sewage treatment everywhere, and I don’t understand why we have to have provisions for a surcharge in a metro area, because surely if there is anything we can do to keep these rates at the same level from one part to the other it should be essential. Maybe I have misunderstood this, but it seems to me that there is a possibility here for the costs in Etobicoke to be far higher than they are in Scarborough or something of that sort, when the actual costs of any project should be borne equally so that the rates can be uniform from one part to the other.

The next item that surprised and disappointed us was this matter of changing Metro Planning Board over to just a committee of council, the reason being that although we realize that in theory this should mean more response to the democratic system, we realize that in practice the time constraints of members of council, particularly Metro council, are such that they really can’t get into the issues to the extent that those who are appointed from the citizenry can. This means that there is greater dependency upon the staff. There’s more dependency upon public servants who are less involved in the day-to-day problems out in the community than would be citizens who are appointed to help provide the input to our planning.

We feel that the practice of planning boards in the past, where there has been a combination of elected members and appointed members from the citizenry, has provided us with one of the most essential parts of the democratic process, bringing together as closely as possible elected members and citizens in the development of answers to problems, and then giving that decision to the public servant to execute. The more that we restrict the opportunity for citizens and elected people to work together, as they have been able to do on the Metro Planning Board in the past, I think the less will be the involvement and the participation of the citizens and the greater will be the input from the public servants and the bureaucracy to the detriment of the democratic process.

When I read about how this recommendation came about, the fact that this recommendation was passed by council as a result just of a notice of motion at a meeting and didn’t come up through committee where it could have been studied and discussed by the various borough councils thoroughly before the recommendation was made to us, it leads us to urge the minister to set this aside and give more opportunity for Metro council to discuss this particular matter. We feel that the opposition of four mayors -- Mayors Crombie, Flynn, White and Cosgrove, I understand -- and the very narrow margin of passage would indicate that this reconsideration of the issue by Metro council is war- ranted. I would hope that the minister would recognize the need for greater caution in a move which will put more power in the hands of the bureaucracy.

The matter of O’Keefe Centre appointments which will now include the members of council would seem sensible, and we agree with that. We are pleased that the mall would seem to become more assured, and that there is provision now for us to have the Yonge St. mall and other malls as long as there is co-operation between both the city and the Metro council. In view of all these matters, we are looking forward to further debate with the minister in committee, because we do think that this bill on the whole has too many clauses that centralize power in the Metro council.

Metropolitan Toronto has been a model in the past, but it has been a model of good municipal government in the past largely because there has been the need to go through many local councils before decisions are made. There hasn’t been the opportunity for dictatorial actions; there has been the necessity to work closely together in a way that has been of great benefit to the whole community, with local councils working with each other and with Metro. We are very much concerned about this bill, which reduces the power of local council and strengthens the dictatorial power of the chairman and his executives. We would urge the minister, when this matter comes up in committee, to reconsider these clauses.

Mr. Speaker: May we take a break for a moment to call on the member for Sandwich-Riverside?

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I should like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House a class of students from grade 8 at John Ross Public School, on Bernard Rd., in Windsor, accompanied by two parents and Mr. William Bowden. I should like the members to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): My group is not here yet.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I want to say something on this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will forgive me, I was listening on the blower in my office and heard the member for York Centre quietly coming to the end of his remarks. I raced here to this superb forum in order to express a point of view, and I shall do so as I gradually catch my breath.

It is possible to support this bill on second reading, Mr. Speaker, because it contains within it a diverse number of clauses dealing with various matters, many of those matters eminently supportable. Obviously, therefore, if we want to express opposition to certain items, that is best done in the committee, and we will confine ourselves to that when the clauses are debated.

But there are two or three aspects of the Act already discussed at length by members of the House which I’d like to take a moment to reinforce. I am doing so, Mr. Speaker, not because I am terribly knowledgeable about it -- my other colleagues know more of these matters than I do -- not because there is need to speak simply for the sake of speaking, but because a number of people have approached me directly with a profound concern about the implications of certain clauses of this bill, and I’d like to raise it in that context.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the first bill I can recall which contains significant alterations in the planning process for the Metropolitan Toronto area. It is the first bill that creates a shift in power to Metropolitan Toronto at the expense of several of the boroughs and the city of Toronto. These changes have flowed not from a thoughtful appraisal of the issues, not from a consultative process, not from recommendations which have come from a group of interested people like the individual borough councils, or a number of politicians associated with those councils, but have been negotiated privately, surreptitiously and unacceptably between the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto on one hand and this minister or the Minister of Housing on the other.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t want to be put in the position of choosing whom to believe, whether it’s the member for Grenville-Dundas or Mr. Godfrey, because they said quite conflicting things. I want to tell the minister something. I believe what he said in the House. I accept it completely. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the way in which he answered the question was entirely direct and straightforward, and I accept it.

I don’t say that gratuitously; I mean it. Because I do believe that the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto council, either through the apparatus of personal contact, letter writing, osmosis, extrasensory perception -- I don’t know what designs the man used -- but however they were, they were extended directly to these ministers with the suggestion that the Metropolitan Toronto council have given to it certain authority in housing and planning matters which it has not hitherto had. And the ministry accepted that with two caveats: One, that it would be permissive; and the other that it was subject to the approval of the Minister of Housing.

All right, Mr. Speaker, now I just want to say to the minister opposite that the method of arriving at the amendment is wrong. Look, Paul Godfrey is a powerful man, but he has no right in the world as an appointed official to express the dictates of his motives through government policy. And the government has no right to accept it. He is an appointed chairman of Metropolitan Toronto; he has no electoral base at all. He should, on balance, be arbitrating between the various views and factions which exist as expressed through the council level.

He obviously doesn’t deny his own views. The man’s autonomous; he expresses those views at council. But he shouldn’t engage in quiet negotiation with government which countermands entirely the obvious wishes of his council, or a number of members of his council.

That’s just wrong. People who are not elected, people who are appointed, should not be given that kind of influence in Ontario. If Paul Godfrey wishes to exercise it that’s his right, but the government should not wish to accept it. And it creates a most dangerous precedent in this bill -- and it’s an irritating one -- when an appointed official responsive to no one other than to those who appointed him, can have this private cabalistic relationship with a couple of cabinet ministers. That is nonsense. That isn’t a democratic form of altering regional government units. That is just a bare knuckle exercise of influence. We don’t approve of that kind of thing and the government shouldn’t accept it.

There has been sufficient evidence to show it was wrong and the minister has every avenue of retreat; if not retreat, then of change. There was a motion before Metropolitan council -- a vote of 17 to 10 -- to have these particular clauses reopened. It fell short of the two-thirds required but it was sufficiently representative, with a sufficient number of prestigious people, to show the major feelings of council. There have been representations from a great many of the respected members of the city of Toronto, the mayors of the various boroughs. These are elected people. On a regular intermittent basis they go back to the electors of the province for support. To whom does Paul Godfrey return? Where is his base?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): To his mother.

Mr. Lewis: To his mother?

Mr. Germa: He talks to his mother.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I have thought about the Oedipal implications of that relationship many times but they are not a fit subject for discussion in the Legislature. Don’t think it hasn’t occurred to me, but that is the Metro chairman’s decision.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that all the evidence in the world which the minister has at his disposal should have allowed him to say “We won’t engage in this particular kind of amendment on the basis of that information.”

The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that those clauses which are the inherent principle of the bill are themselves wrong. The government is redistributing power in a way which is destructive for

Metropolitan Toronto. I want to say something about this bill and I have a certain self-consciousness about it because I am not as knowledgeable as so many are in the area. I don’t know all that much about regional government and its precise working. I have feelings and opinions and impressions. But I know that this bill, in its own quiet way, is the single most decisive alteration to regional planning since the government established the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The minister can say in reply that the clauses are permissive and that the Ministry of Housing has to approve it. The mere fact the minister is prepared to incorporate such clauses, on the request of a fellow Tory politician with some influence with him, suggests to me that the clauses can be open to serious abuse. What he is saying is that the power will shift from the boroughs to the regional municipality on matters related to housing, than which there is no more crucial matter or central matter, by virtue of these enactments.

I think that is wrong. I think that is a mistake. There is a certain irony involved that in precisely the same legislation the minister sees the boroughs as of sufficient consequence to say to them, “You can call yourselves cities hereafter.” He gives them the right to call themselves cities and then gives the Metropolitan authority the opportunity, through the bill, to establish regional housing plans in a way which demands by law conformity from the individual cities. I tell him it is a mistake.

It is the wrong direction. It is not simply a matter of intruding on local autonomy. It is the wrong direction for basic planning. There are 300,000-plus people in Scarborough. We have boroughs of enormous size around the city of Toronto. Their housing and social and economic priorities have frequently been superior to those decided at Metro council, manifestly superior. One doesn’t turn the clock back this way but that is what the bill is doing.

The bill is doing something else, Mr. Speaker. By making the planning board purely a committee of council, the bill is again delimiting the citizen representation, the citizen accessibility. That is, I think, overall a mistake, although I understand from what my colleague from Ottawa Centre and others have said this is a trend which is evident in other parts of the province.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, if you are removing from the cities so much of their control around basic social policy and then, in effect, you remove the citizen dimension of the planning board, you are in a difficult position. We are in a particularly difficult position, if I may extend it one stage further, because the absurdity of the way the legislative system works in Ontario dictates that this bill will not go to committee. Therefore, groups like CORRA, groups like ForWard 9 and every residents association you care to name -- all of the ratepayers groups -- none of them will be able to come before the committee to express their views.

If the Mayor of Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York or Toronto or any of the individual councillors wish to come before the legislative committee to say these sections were unacceptable, they will have no such access, and the process compounds the weak- nesses in the bill. There is a tendency to give very short shrift to citizen representation and submission and pressure on this government. I understand that. It doesn’t make me any less irritable that the government should be prepared to do it in a bill which is ostensibly as important as this one and which has within it some pretty decisive clauses.

Some of us have our little spasms, I say to House leader as he leaves, about the way in which the business of the House is ordered, Mr. Speaker. But I cannot imagine a situation more perverse as to bring in legislation of this weight and then to deny to the public the right to come to a standing committee to discuss its contents. That’s an absolute extension of the bill. Damn it, Mr. Speaker, why every blessed session --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Louder.

Mr. Lewis: All right, I’ll raise my voice if the member for Timiskaming can’t hear me. I’m not at all sure that anything would penetrate that extraordinary fortress that he has mounted there, whether it was sotto voce, whispered in his ear or yelled at him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Scarborough West is just a big blabbermouth anyway, and he knows it.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The buttress of the ignorance of the member for Timiskaming is unsurpassed in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I certainly do.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Will the Speaker bring that yahoo over there to heel then?

Mr. Lewis: Don’t call him a yahoo. That brings him into the 18th century and one doesn’t update a fellow like that so easily.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Scarborough West permit the member for Kent to speak for just one moment?

Mr. Lewis: With the greatest of pleasure.

Mr. Spence: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention and through you to the hon. members of this House that we have with us 65 grade 8 students from Howard Harwich, Moraviantown, Public School, and two of the teaching staff, Mr. Tanguay and Mr. Wagg. I would ask the hon. members to join me in extending them a very happy welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are a patient, indulgent fellow and I appreciate that. I would, therefore very quickly summarize and take my seat.

These clauses are really quite wrong and within them they contain not only perverse social policy but they reflect an attitude of government which is reprehensible. I don’t like these wheelings and dealings, I really don’t. I don’t think that’s the way one conducts business in Ontario. I don’t like these private conversations with the Metro chairman. I don’t like these friendly little submissions over cocktails. I don’t think social policy is fashioned that way. The minister may think that the Family Compact should still be operative in 1974, but we don’t.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): They are trying to maintain it.

Mr. Lewis: I really find that aspect of this bill unacceptable. I don’t give voice to any conspiracy feeling and I don’t say that the minister is especially easily influenced. I just say that that’s not the way to fashion social change and it’s not the way to fashion change in housing policy, because the Metro chairman has this extraordinary accessibility to a couple of cabinet ministers that he thumbs his nose at all his colleagues.

The minister is willing to submit to what amounts to legislative edict over the coffee table. Nuts to it! That’s not the way Parliament performs. When that legislative edict involves clauses which are destructive of basic social and economic planning, it’s that much worse. When it involves clauses which delimit citizen involvement, it’s that much worse. And when the bill comes in at the end of the session, so that it is absolutely impossible for citizens’ groups to make their contribution, it’s that much worse.

There are very few redeeming aspects to this particular situation. I’d like it if the boroughs could be called cities; and I’ll vote for that. I like the Toronto mall; I think it’s great stuff. I don’t have the same anxiety about it as some do, and I’ll vote for a section on liability.

There are a number of things in the bill which are eminently supportable. But not the stuff that the minister negotiated in the privacy of his inner sanctum with Paul Godfrey. How come I haven’t been invited into the minister’s office to discuss amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto bill? Am I some kind of pariah?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member is welcome at any time.

Mr. Lewis: Is the problem that I am an elected person? Are only appointed people invited to the minister’s office to discuss contributions to the bill? Is that the way he works? Are there lesser mortals and greater mortals?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member is welcome at any time at all.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I want to know what it is that is so insufferable about the elective process that the only people who can penetrate the labyrinth are those high Tory appointees?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When would the hon. member like to come? Would he like to set a date?

Mr. Lewis: Well, I’d like the minister to set some time aside. I’d like a pretty substantial lunch with it, and the attendants and all the other things --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Will the member pay?

Mr. Lewis: -- that the minister visits upon his friends, sycophants, lackeys and scribes. I’d like it all there. I’d like to know how this government functions and sets its policy, because it’s just an impossible situation.

But I think the bill has had one rather positive aspect, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker. It has alerted a great many of the able metropolitan politicians in the boroughs and on the council to recognize exactly what is going on in these quiet shenanigans. It has perhaps made many of them rather more aware that the city of Toronto can beg till Doomsday and it will lose the authority it thought it had by the stroke of a pen on an agreement negotiated in private. It has perhaps persuaded some politicians that the decisions made at the provincial level are so arbitrary and capricious that regional and municipal government makes very little sense any more.

The permissive quality of the legislation notwithstanding -- we understand the meaning of the word “permissive” --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think the member does.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes, I do. Completely. I understand that when the minister puts those clauses in the bill it’s an open invitation to enactment.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: That’s why they are there.

Mr. Cassidy: It strengthens Godfrey’s hand.

Mr. Lewis: It strengthens the hands of the Metropolitan chairman in all of the dealing he would like to have. The minister doesn’t do that. He wouldn’t put in a permissive clause that I suggested to him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I am absolutely sure of that. No, he wouldn’t, even though I said to him, “Look, Mr. Minister, it’s permissive. But you need not be concerned about it.” No, he accepts permissive clauses only when they serve the objectives at hand and only when they come from certain sources. Well, that’s his decision. We put our views on record. We will continue to fight those clauses, clause by clause.

Mr. Speaker, I make one last appeal to the minister. This Legislature obviously isn’t going to close, as we thought, either today, Monday or Tuesday, it’s going to be going for quite a while. It may go into July; I have no idea how to measure it. Fair enough. But if it is going to go for another week, 10 days or two weeks, as now appears the case, given the list of bills which the House leader has just given to us that he wants to see passed -- and some of them are contentious -- if it is going to go that long, then surely the Metro Toronto bill can go to committee. Why not? Committee is there. We’ll be sitting. Groups can make submissions. Maybe it would add something to the democratic process, rather than forever repudiating it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks rather brief. I think we’ve had a pretty repetitious discussion on certain sections of the bill; and there are more important sections in the bill, as far as I am concerned, which haven’t even been touched on. In any event, I want to say to the members opposite, no government throughout Canada, and certainly no ministry, has been more consultative and more responsive to the people than we have. The Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and myself have consulted with the elected officials and with the people of Ontario in every instance. And, if the leader of the NDP wants to consult with me, that’s fine -- but he has to tell me.

Mr. Cassidy: But not on this one. That is where the minister is so wrong.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He has to tell me if he wants to meet with me.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I meet with people and the Treasurer meets with people every day at all times, and there is nothing secret about it whatsoever.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s why the minister is so wrong on this issue.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have said time and time again, that we want to hand back more authority to the elected people, whether at regional level or at the local municipality level.

The opposition on one hand says, “Give them more powers -- give them more powers, let them do more things.” And today they are saying, “Take powers away from them.” I fail to understand, Mr. Speaker, how you can justify arguments like that. This government has said in this Act that it is permissive legislation in two issues. And the leader of the NDP says he understands the word “permissive”. He understands the wording; he under- stands what it means.

Mr. Deans: He worries how it gets there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It means that the Metropolitan council can proceed -- that’s what it means, not the Metro chairman. All the arguments that have been put before us in the last few hours had been about the chairman. The chairman has absolutely no control of what happens in Metropolitan Toronto. He may suggest --

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister kidding?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- but it is the elected people who decide.

Mr. Cassidy: He seems to be doing pretty well up here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way that any chairman, whether it is at the level of Metropolitan Toronto or the regional municipality of Durham, or anywhere else, who can decide what happens in that particular municipality. I’ve said it to the House before that a chairman has the obligation and the duty to present to this government or to his council his views on certain matters. I fully commend the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, in this instance, coming to us and saying he thought there were certain matters that should be considered in legislation.

Mr. Lewis: But he is just an appointed person.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I want to say again --

Mr. Deans: He does represent someone. He represents the government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that as far as the chief administrator officer is concerned --

Mr. Lewis: It is a personal opinion.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- whatever the council decides is up to them. It is not up to the chairman at all. Whether or not they decide to have one is up to them, and when they decide is up to them.

The leader of the official opposition, the leader of the NDP, the member for York Centre, the member for Ottawa Centre -- everyone has expressed concern about the meaning of “permissive.” I don’t know why it shouldn’t be permissive. If they don’t want one, they don’t have one. If they want it, they have one. As far as I am concerned, that’s the way it is going to stand.

Mr. Deacon: Be practical.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is going to be permissive.

Mr. Cassidy: The best way to describe the minister’s attitude is pigheadedness.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other members in the House, that I really find it most frustrating as a member to have to listen so long -- and I feel something like the member for Ottawa Centre. I have had moments of despair when I listen to him time and time again repeat himself -- so many times absolutely the same thing. If he would just say it once, fair enough; no problem.

An hon. member: He sounds like a broken record.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When the member’s own colleagues left him alone, that was the best move they ever made. Why they came back, I don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They can’t stand him either.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister would accept it when I say it.

Mr. Foulds: Because we support him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would think the member for Ottawa Centre would have the courtesy to get up, as his leader did, and state what he objected to -- and that’s it.

Mr. Foulds: Has the minister never heard of the Miltonian technique?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But instead of that, he carried on and he repeated himself on housing --

Mr. Deans: What’s this, a lecture on how to debate?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Why sure, it’s about time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He repeated himself on the planning board --

Mr. Deans: That’s not his function; it is the function of the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And he repeated himself on the democratic system. What more democracy is there, Mr. Speaker, than when we say to the elected officials, “You represent the people; you were the ones that are making the decisions”?

Mr. Foulds: Paul Godfrey isn’t elected.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And why should we consider in this House a standing committee to listen to the people who should be making their views known to the elected officials whom they have put in office? Why should we be doing what the elected officials at the local level should be doing? Would someone answer that for me later on in the committee of the whole House?

Mr. Cassidy: Because the minister is responsible for the structure of municipal government. That is what he is doing. He is responsible for the structure of municipal government. These are very important questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to point out to the hon. members opposite that there is a very important matter in this bill.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Timiskaming better interject as much as he can, because he won’t be here the next time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Half of my time is spent doing the member’s constituency work.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Scarborough West should worry about his own backyard. He barely won, by 170 votes and almost talked himself out of the House last time.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t worry my friend; the member for Timiskaming won’t be back.

Mr. Laughren: I know three people who will miss the member for Timiskaming.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will continue when the hon. members get through their discussions.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. minister would continue.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to try.

Mr. Lewis: We are having a little exchange with this particular Magna Carta relic over there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to point out to the members that there is a very important section here, which was dealt briefly with by the member for York Centre, and that is on the opening of the mall. We would like to see this proceed and I have had many representations to me about when it is going to proceed. All I can say right now is I don’t know. I have said before that it depends on how much time the opposition wishes to spend on this bill. We will debate the bill as long as the members wish but I want to point out there has been a considerable amount of money lost at the local level because of the delay in this bill.

Mr. Foulds: What kind of Machiavellian machination is that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say to the members that we should make sure we do not unduly delay this legislation or any other legislation.

Mr. Cassidy: Why didn’t the minister bring it in earlier? He was too busy with backroom deals with Paul Godfrey, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I say again that any legislation we bring forth is for the good of all the people. It’s not because of any special deals with any one person or persons and certainly we continue to make sure that all the elected people have the right to either disagree or agree with legislation. In this case, it’s permissive legislation which is in contention, I believe.

Mr. Stokes: To make sure they have the right to agree or disagree? That is just simple democracy.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Cassidy: No, standing committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole.

CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves second reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the City of the Lakehead Act, 1968-69.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In many ways this bill has some of the same characteristics as the bill we have previously discussed. There are clauses in this bill we will support and will support strongly. There are clauses in this bill we will oppose. Because there is such a mixture of principle in those clauses, we will not divide on second reading although we will do so in committee.

There are nine clauses in this bill which boil down to three basic but quite diverse principles. One of those principles I agree with; one I will succumb to and one, I and my colleagues will vigorously oppose. There is also an oversight which does away officially with the parks boards in the old city of Fort William.

The first principle involves one of taxation, sections 5 and 6, and that’s the one we agree with. Both sections 5 and 6 deal with taxation and should be approved by all members of the House, I would hope. Section 5, for example, extends the time for lower tax rates in the rural wards of the city, Neebing and McIntyre, until 1977. As the provincial government has failed and has never seen fit to give the newly formed city of Thunder Bay any transitional grants whatsoever to meet its additional costs, the city has found it very difficult indeed to upgrade the services in the two wards of Neebing and McIntyre to anywhere near the standard the rest of the city enjoys. It is, therefore, only just that those two wards should have the extension of a lower taxation rate guaranteed until 1977 by which time, hopefully, their services will be improved.

Section 6 deals with a specific problem in Thunder Bay. The Canadian Lakehead Exhibition Board is in the process of leasing to a commercial department store the area described in section 6 of the bill in order that that firm, Chapples Ltd., can erect a shopping complex on the site. The city, which will have to supply the services to the area, justifiably wants the power to tax this land used for commercial purposes which, at the present time, the city cannot do because technically the land remains the property of the exhibition board and is therefore not subject to taxation in the normal course of things.

I think we would all agree the city should have the right to tax this property as it will no longer be used for agricultural or exhibition board purposes. We will support those two sections.

The second principle in the bill is one to which I will reluctantly succumb. That’s the principle that is enunciated in sections 1 and 7 involving the name of the city. Hon. members might be interested in a brief historical recap of how we got lumbered with the name of Thunder Bay. The amalgamation of the city was a shotgun wedding enforced upon the people of Port Arthur, Fort William, Neebing and McIntyre by none other than Marshal Darcy McKeough, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, as a sop and as a sop only.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The Duke of Kent, too.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, the Duke of Kent. It was sort of a feudal attitude that he brought to the area. As a sop, the one concern over which the citizens were given some choice was that they were allowed to choose the city name.

However, in this matter a certain manipulation, if not enforcement, took place. The choice on the ballot, believe it or not, was as follows: Lakehead, The Lakehead and Thunder Bay. Naturally, the name Thunder Bay slipped through the middle, even though over 60 per cent of the electorate favoured some form of Lakehead as the name of the city, while less than 40 per cent favoured the name Thunder Bay. The confusion arising from that name change is one that we have learned to cope with. Having lived with the name of Thunder Bay for some four years now, most of us are ready to succumb to the fact now embodied in this legislation.

Mr. Stokes: We have the city of Thunder Bay on the shores of Thunder Bay in the district of Thunder Bay, but not within the electoral boundaries of Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: The riding of Thunder Bay. We’ll have something to say about the renaming of the provincial ridings at the appropriate time.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, we’ll have more to say about the electoral commission than that.

Mr. Foulds: It’s going to be one of those little footnotes in the records of time.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I don’t think members opposite are alone.

Mr. Foulds: However, the third principle that is involved in the bill is a fundamental principle. It is involved in the method of election of aldermen for city council. That principle is enunciated in sections 2 and 3 of the bill. This bill, if passed, will extend the present electoral system for at least one more election and almost guarantee its continuance forever in the future.

This electoral system is, to put it bluntly, the most bastardized, undemocratic, gerrymandering voting system yet devised in our province for municipal elections. It must have been devised by a veritable genius with Gothic tendencies toward confusion. It is this principle that I will vigorously oppose and that this Legislature should never have passed. It is called a modified ward system. But it is, in fact, an at-large system that discriminates against the electors in each of the so-called wards.

Let me just outline what happens in this legislation. Five aldermen represent the so-called ward of Port Arthur, but everybody in the city votes for those aldermen. The same thing happens for the same aldermen from Fort William ward. The same thing happens for the single alderman from the Neebing ward and the single alderman from the McIntyre ward. What all this means, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, is that it is mathematically possible to be elected as a representative of any of the four wards without getting a single vote from the people in that ward that one is supposedly representing.

Since December of this past year the city council has been inviting briefs and holding neighbourhood public meetings, which culminated in a formal meeting at the city council chambers in the early part of March, about the electoral system in Thunder Bay. And of the 1,800 submissions made to the city council, over 80 per cent favoured the true or strict ward system, not this bastardized version that we have before us today.

An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. Foulds: Yet the majority of council members, to protect their own political hides, have deliberately refused to ask the province to implement the true ward system. Instead, they have asked the Ontario government to extend the very system that favours themselves and the establishment. This Legislature, if it passes sections 2 and 3 of this bill, will be succumbing to the vested interests of the city of Thunder Bay and refusing to carry out the obvious desires of the majority of the citizens of Thunder Bay.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Ontario Municipal Board has before it at this very moment a duly signed and legitimate petition from the Thunder Bay district labour council, asking that the true ward system be implemented, as they have the right to do under the Ontario Municipal Act.

Just let me show the members how the present electoral system distorts the vote and even goes against the wishes of the electors in a particular ward. Just bear with me for a moment. In the last municipal election, for example, if only the residents of each ward had voted on the candidates in the wards, Mario Tocheri would have been elected in Neebing instead of Robbie Taylor, because in the nine Neebing polls he got the majority of the vote -- 488 to 350. But because the other ward voted -- not in a great number -- in favour of the other candidate, the people of Neebing did not have as their representative the one they obviously wished to have.

Mr. Stokes: That’s the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Cassidy: That is Tory democracy for you.

Mr. Foulds: That is exactly right. In the Fort William ward, first place went to Mr. Dale Willoughby with Larry Barts and David Hughes as runners-up. However, if Fort William votes alone had counted, Mr. Barts would have been ahead 4,119 to 3,578. Those are just two examples from the last municipal election that show the distortion that takes place, giving, as my colleague says, the worst of both worlds to this electoral system.

In spite of the residency requirement -- here is the supreme irony -- in spite of the residency requirement on election day, that these people represent their wards, seven out of the 12 aldermen currently serving on council live in a narrow strip less than two miles wide between the Neebing River and Isabella St. I have a map that can graphically show the strip in which seven out of the 12 aldermen live -- less than two miles wide -- here within the Fort William ward; and you have large sections of the city with substantial population entirely unrepresented. Kirk River over here is unrepresented; the centre of Port Arthur ward is unrepresented; the whole innercity section is unrepresented, and Westfort is entirely unrepresented on city council.

Mr. Stokes: The chief electoral officer of this province would never submit to that.

Mr. Foulds: Even he wouldn’t allow such kind of gerrymandering.

Mr. Laughren: I am not too sure.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Withdraw the word “even.”

Mr. Laughren: Don’t the Liberals like the word “even” in there?

Mr. Stokes: The member should withdraw “even.”

Mr. Foulds: I will withdraw the “even.”

Mr. Deans: If the member withdraws the “even,” I am not supporting what he says!

Mr. Foulds: I have to leave it in. On a point of coercion, I have to leave it in!

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is something that has been masqueraded -- before the people of this Legislature, before the people of this province, and originally before the people of Thunder Bay until they realized its implications -- as a ward system, but in effect is an at-large system. An at-large system, as studies of municipal elections throughout the United States and Canada have shown, continually benefits the present incumbents and the middle-class establishment.

Mr. Laughren: The Tory party.

Mr. Foulds: In this case it is the Tory party.

In a town like Thunder Bay a number of people are in business with their names; they advertise on television, on radio and in the newspapers with the names of their firms. When people go to the ballot box and see such a name on a list of 40 contestants, if they are unsophisticated voters and do not know the merits of them, that is the one they are accustomed to. It’s the old technique of hitting them as many times as possible simply with the name.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That is why Nixon is such a good name.

Mr. Foulds: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: It depends on where you live.

Mr. Foulds: And it depends on the kind of reinforcement that you get. The member should not have brought that up.

This kind of election system, the at-large system, favours the middle-class establishment and the downtown merchants. Yet, even with that, Mr. Speaker, in the chamber of commerce survey, the people who had the most to gain passed the approval of this system by a mere four per cent -- a tiny margin of 54 per cent out of the class of voter and the class of possible candidate. Even they had severe reservations about this kind of electoral system.

Let me just state, Mr. Speaker, that I think this minister should have brought in -- for it is entirely within his capability -- the requirement for a true ward system in the city of Thunder Bay.

I would like to say a few words about why I personally would approve of the true ward system. Those groups that consider themselves in any way disadvantaged tend to favour the ward system by a large majority. The most significant submission that was made to the city council came from the labour council of the city of Thunder Bay. For example, Mr. Speaker, there is no representative on the present city council who is a blue-collar worker who represents the working man, who represents the labour movement. And the labour council in Thunder Bay alone represents 12,000 voters -- and you probably can double that number in terms of their interests.

Mr. Laughren: Sounds like a board of governors for one of the colleges.

Mr. Foulds: Let me just say that if a council of a city like Thunder Bay had as one of its members a mill worker or an elevator worker, it would benefit enormously from understanding the thinking and the political process that is going on within the city of Thunder Bay. The present council does not understand the process that is going on in Thunder Bay.

If people are handicapped in any way in the normal run of things, if they are physically handicapped or they suffer other kinds of handicaps, they will all get champions on council for whatever reasons -- some of them good, some of them for vote-getting purposes. But the ordinary working guy does not get his champion on council unless he has one of his own number sitting there. They have to be elected from amongst themselves, and the at-large system works very strongly against them.

Surely to goodness, the true ward system would give the voter a greater sense of participation in the political process, because he would have more direct access to his elected member; and his elected member, the elected alderman in his ward, could have more direct access to him in terms of neighbourhood meetings, in terms of canvassing, in terms of other communication which takes place be- tween them; because the wards would be so relatively small and manageable that two-way communication could take place.

Frankly, the original reason given for this system was that it would play down the rivalry between the old city of Port Arthur and the old city of Fort William. That is patent nonsense. What has happened with this system, where there are five people from Fort William and five from Port Arthur on the council, is that the old Port Arthur-Fort William rivalry has festered, has grown.

It’s been encouraged by this Conservative government, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) and by the way this Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) has deliberately gone against the wishes of the people of the city -- and even against the council -- by putting the government complex within the Fort William ward instead of having it at intercity as a symbol of unity in the city.

Mr. Laughren: It’s shameful.

Mr. Stokes: What about the mini-Queen’s Park?

Mr. Foulds: That’s what I’m talking about, the mini-Queen’s Park. They like to refer to it as the government complex.

I believe the breaking down into smaller wards and having one alderman from each of those wards would do away with that rivalry because the alderman would be able to consider the general questions of importance in terms of policy for the benefit of the unified, city but would also be able to think of the interests of his ward. He wouldn’t have to think any longer in terms of Port Arthur and Fort William.

This present system, Mr. Speaker, works against the person who may be well known and. active in his local community organization, in his recreation group and within his own area. He may have a very excellent contribution to make, the person who is active within his neighbourhood organization. He could have a very excellent contribution to make to council but because he has not gained a reputation throughout the city he has no chance whatsoever in this modified at-large system or the true at-large system.

On the other hand, the true ward system does not discriminate against any of the present incumbents. Being well known throughout the city as a whole they would, ipso facto, be well known within the ward itself. I think, frankly, the feeling of direct participation as the result of a true ward system would lead to a healthier and more vital political climate in the city of Thunder Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I have about three or four minutes before I conclude these remarks and I would beg your permission to continue.

No; I am sorry I cannot support this bill. It is the clear intent of chapter 284 of the Statutes of Ontario, section 13, subsections 1, 2 and 3 of the Municipal Act, that true ward systems should be implemented in cities the size of Thunder Bay. This bill contravenes that clear intention. The so-called modified ward system for Thunder Bay, which is in fact the badly mangled at-large system, has not worked to unify the city. A system of small true wards would.

At the present time there is a lot of buck-passing in our city council. Saying they are elected at large and their responsibility is to the city at large means the aldermen can avoid the guy in Current River, who is having trouble with the sewers or the pavement or the sidewalks. He can say, “The rest of the council won’t go along with me.” He doesn’t have a direct responsibility.

A true ward system would give equal opportunity to all candidates. It would not favour the incumbents and the well-known businessmen and the personalities. A true ward system would ensure that all areas of the city were fairly and properly represented and it is not just from the viewpoint of the candidate that equal opportunity has to be seen. It is from the viewpoint of the electors. A list of 40 or more candidates, as happens now, is confusing and frustrating to all but the most sophisticated voter.

Fundamentally, it comes down to what one’s concept of democracy is. A part of that concept includes accessibility to one’s elected representative and the responsibility of that elected representative to his electors. A true ward system would ensure accessibility for the voter to his alderman. It would also ensure responsibility of that alderman to his electors.

To me, Mr. Speaker, the important principle of democracy is not simply the primitive concept that the majority rules, but rather the more civilized concept that the minority is protected. There are minorities within cities too and the geographical distance makes no difference. The average voter in the eastend or the southend or Westfort or Current River in my city is just as far from the centres of power in Thunder Bay as is the Saskatchewan farmer from the centre of power here at Queen’s Park.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we will oppose sections 2 and 3 most vigorously when it comes to committee. We will be offering alternate proposals for a true ward system, not this particularly discriminatory electoral system. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Are there other members wishing to participate in the debate? If not, perhaps the hon. minister would move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have distributed lists of the legislation that we will be dealing with. We will carry on with the routine as was laid down last evening.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.