Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT (CONCLUDED)

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock there was consideration of a motion by Mr. Cassidy. Is there any further discussion on that?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): When we rose at 6 I had asked on a point of order for some clarification on the procedure with regard to adequate notice being given to committee members about a committee meeting held for the purpose of discussing estimates. The Chairman indicated at 6 that he was going to check with the Speaker over the supper hour and report back. I think we should deal with that before we proceed, because if the committee is meeting, then obviously I have to be there rather than here.

Mr. Chairman: I understood the Chairman who was in the chair at 6 o’clock did check with Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker indicated there was nothing irregular about it. Apparently the previous business came to an end, and either the time has to be wasted or the committee must proceed with the next order of business as was announced, I suppose, earlier.

Mr. Deans: It was not announced.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t know about that. The Management Board estimates, I understand, are being heard at this moment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That’s a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): They are then.

Mr. Chairman: Yes. Any further comment on the motion by Mr. Cassidy, which I think is the one before me? All right. Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion --

Mr. Cassidy: Could we have a response from the minister to the comments of the member for St. George, my own comments and the comments of the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor)?

This is about the most important and dangerous amendment in this set of amendments. Most of them are not dangerous in fact, but this one is, particularly in the objectionable way in which it has been put forward.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, certainly I’d like to make a comment. Again, I believe we have to go back to what we said at the beginning. This is an amendment whereby the metropolitan council -- and not the chairman, as the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and some of the other members have said; not the chairman at all -- the council will decide whether or not there will be a housing policy.

As far as this particular amendment to section 10 is concerned, it has to be approved by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman). And no one can tell me that metropolitan council or the minister would approve something in regard to housing policy which would not be acceptable to the boroughs or cities that are part of Metropolitan Toronto. I can’t understand why so much exception is being taken to the fact that we are putting in permissive legislation to what I think is good planning for a housing policy for Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy: That is precisely the problem.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The members may say that this is mandatory, arbitrary and so on. That’s absolutely nonsense. It’s not arbitrary. It’s not mandatory --

Mr. Cassidy: Sure it is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And it’s not something the chairman will decide upon. It’s something the council members will decide upon. As for this government not being able to relate to the people, as I believe was mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, we relate very closely to the people.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): You don’t believe that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to say to the hon. member for St. George: Don’t live in a fantasy, in a world of your own. This government relates more closely to the people of Ontario than any other government all over Canada.

Mrs. Campbell: Who are you kidding?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as this ministry is concerned, don’t you ever think for one moment that you have the answers, because you haven’t got the answers. Because you happened to be on Metropolitan council at one time, do you think you are the only one who can make a decision? Absolutely not, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): She is not trying to impose her decision. Isn’t this a democracy still? What’s the matter with you?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the people have as much right to decide as anybody else. We are saying to the people who elect the council, who elect the members at the local level, that they are the ones to decide; and we are making it permissive for them to do so.

You went to some length to say that this is mandatory and arbitrary. I am saying to you it is not. And with all due respect, I wish to say to the hon. member for St. George, through the Chairman, that it is absolute nonsense when she says this is an arbitrary decision taken by this government. It is not. It is a decision that will be taken by the members of the Metro council, a decision that will be taken by those who are elected in the boroughs or the cities, whichever the case may be --

Mr. Cassidy: It has not been taken by them yet because they haven’t had a chance to discuss it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They don’t have to take a decision; that’s the point. They don’t have to take a decision until they are ready to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: They are stuck with legislation that the administrative assistant to the chairman says is terrible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member for Ottawa Centre again is not reading the Act correctly, because he doesn’t want to read it correctly. He doesn’t want to understand that this is done in co-operation with everyone. He may be against it for some reason which I haven’t been able to understand, and I don’t suppose I ever would; regardless of that, all I am saying to him is that the people of Metropolitan Toronto will decide, through their elected representatives, as to what action takes place in regard to housing policy --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Why didn’t they have the opportunity to request the legislation in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and they will have the opportunity to decide as time goes on.

Mr. Renwick: Why didn’t they have the opportunity to request the legislation in the first place, instead of having it forced upon them by the Metro chairman?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have stated the policy of this government three or four times in similar Acts, whereby I was permissive. I again say to you that this government is not imposing upon anyone within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, without their wishes, any policy unless those they elect want to ensure they have a proper housing policy.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please --

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this a bit further. I am tempted to get angry and so on. I am not going to get angry, though --

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Go ahead, get mad.

Mr. Cassidy: I am just going to say very seriously to the minister that there is a serious problem here, which is that the Minister of Housing, not only this minister, would like to see a Metropolitan Toronto housing policy. Frankly, so would I like to see a Metropolitan Toronto housing policy.

Of all of the points that I made during the course of the debate, I would repeat one particular item put forward to this government, which is pragmatic, which doesn’t give a damn about what the people think, but which may have some feelings about getting things done.

One of the things that the Minister of Housing would very much like, I would suggest, would be to see Metro council adopt a housing policy like the proposal put forward by Mr. Godfrey, which involved at least 40 per cent of the housing built in Metro over the next year or two to be social housing of one sort or another, directed to people of low and moderate incomes.

The problem I want to bring to the minister’s attention and ask him to reply specifically to is, doesn’t he think that the legislation in the form put forward is going to be counter-productive? And how does he measure the dangers of borough representatives and city representatives on Metro council defeating or stalling a Metro housing policy because they are not ready to have both the housing policy and the policy which dictates to them what it is they are going to do?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I guess we have two different philosophies. I live in the affirmative side of the world.

Mrs. Campbell: You live in an unreal world.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think things can move forward if we want them to. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is saying that nothing will go forward, because he has a negative attitude. I think it is time that we take a constructive, not obstructive, attitude in this House and try to help those who are elected. And this is what we are trying to do. We are trying to say if you wish to --

Mr. Cassidy: Paul Godfrey wasn’t elected and you are trying to help him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I will only say it once more. I really don’t want to get into an argument with the member for Ottawa Centre, because I don’t think that would accomplish anything; it would be a waste of time.

Mr. Renwick: It wouldn’t be a waste of time. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is not the Metro chairman we are talking about. This is the council of Metropolitan Toronto. The Metro chairman is a chairman. Surely you can understand that. If he has power enough to influence those people who have been elected, fair enough; that is up to him.

Mr. Renwick: You know the defects of the Metro government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying to you it is up to the elected people to stand on their two feet and decide whether or not they want a housing policy or whether or not they don’t, whether they want an administrative officer or whether or not they don’t and whether they want to be a city or a borough, as the case may be.

Mr. Renwick: Why did you succumb to the Metro chairman?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Surely that should be all right. If that is not all right, there is something wrong with the whole philosophy of the opposition whereby they are trying to say to the government --

Mr. Renwick: This is your bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- on the one hand, give them some powers and then, in the next minute, they are saying take it away.

Mr. Renwick: This is your bill. Explain the philosophy of it, not ours.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have explained it but the member for Riverdale wasn’t here when I was explaining it.

Mr. Renwick: I know what the explanation is. I was here when the question was first asked in the House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: My explanation --

Mr. Renwick: It comes at the request of the Metro chairman done clandestinely with your colleague, the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Do you wish to speak?

Mr. Renwick: Well, if you insist.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with this amendment, not with the chairman of Metro Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy: This is part of that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: No, it is not. Order, please, we are dealing with Mr. Cassidy’s motion.

Mr. Renwick: The minister put forward the bill. He has to justify it. The origin of this bill was a clandestine meeting between the Metro chairman and the Minister of Housing in which this minister concurred. That’s the reason this legislation is here. It has nothing to do with the request of the elected representatives sitting on the Metro council who requested the authority from this government to provide for a housing policy for Metropolitan Toronto. It wasn’t subject to any kind of a debate. The minister can’t now say that he is the one who says we will give them all sorts of powers, because there are many powers he won’t give them. There are many powers you refuse to give them.

The basis on which you’ve got to establish your sense of local autonomy, if you want to pay deference to it the way the members of the Conservative Party do every day, is to say we will grant to the metropolitan council of the city of Toronto what that metropolitan council by way of resolution requests, not what the Metro chairman or someone else who has the ear of the government may request. You know as well as I do the Metro chairman is not elected. He is not elected by any particular franchise at all. Your philosophy is that because he came to your colleague you are giving him that authority. That is putting a wedge in the door before there has been any request, any debate at the borough level and the city of Toronto level, any further debate at the second-tier level or any request coming forward formally from metropolitan council for the purpose of that kind of legislation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It’s the way the two-tier system operates. Does the minister understand it?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Renwick: The two-tier system is based on the proposition that there are two tiers. When matters fundamentally affecting the city of Toronto and the boroughs are to be provided by way of authority to metropolitan council, you can’t get away with the exercise of some kind of a democratic basis of your intuitions about what the city of Toronto or one of the boroughs or the metropolitan council may decide is in the best interests of Metropolitan Toronto. Don’t jump the gun that way.

If you want to face up to the question of the defect in the Metropolitan government bill of the city of Toronto, go ahead and face up to it. But don’t kid yourself by saying we are just granting sort of plenary powers. We’ve had many legitimate requests come to this assembly from elected representatives that have been refused by this very minister in the short time he has been in office.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right. What about rent control? It has been refused again and again and again.

Mr. Renwick: You can’t blow hot on one issue and cold on another. If the city of Toronto comes and asks for specific authority who are you to say no, which is what you have said? If this little god you have created in the Metropolitan Toronto council comes and talks to you -- I am not speaking only of this incumbent of that office; I am talking about the continuing persons who have sat in that seat of authority every one of whom has had the ear of this government and who has not necessarily, on every occasion, been expressing the kind of views which are expressed by the constituent municipalities, nor the kind of views which are expressed by the metropolitan council itself.

The minister knows that and don’t kid around. We understand. It is your bill; your philosophy is patent and clear and it is wrong. Don’t kid us by tossing around what we in our philosophy believe in. We believe in the origin of reasonable policies among elected representatives and if the roadblock is that they don’t have the legislative authority to do it, it is considered here and it is granted to them. That’s local autonomy, not this.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favor of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

Mrs. Campbell: Aye.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could just talk a bit longer, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, but this is the most important clause in the whole bill and for a number of reasons it has got a lot of people upset, not just in Toronto but across the province.

Whatever happened to the commitment of the Treasurer (Mr. White) that important changes in policy would be subject to full consultation? Whatever happened to the precedents which have been set by the Treasurer, again, in giving such life to the Provincial Municipal Liaison Committee in a way which in so many matters is the envy of municipal jurisdictions up and down this continent? Whatever happened? Why did the minister err and stray so badly from the precedents which have been set by the minister who is senior to him in this policy field?

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

Mr. Cassidy: No, we are waiting --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. These are very general statements and we are dealing with --

Mr. Cassidy: But the minister -- the Chairman must let the minister answer.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with a specific amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t need any advice from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The Chairman needs guidance.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The Chairman doesn’t need any advice from you, either.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have a reply?

Mr. Cassidy: The steam-roller is even in the hands of the Chairman.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out very briefly that really what has been said from across the way hasn’t added to the debate one particle as far as I am concerned. What we have said before still stands. We still have the consultative process with all our elected people and with all our people in Ontario. I say right now to the hon. members who have spoken so loudly and so long and without really too much substance, that is why we are here and they are over there. We understand the people --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That is what Weir said in Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and we are not trying to make anything arbitrary whatsoever.

Mr. Cassidy: Those words of yours are going on the record.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are saying that this is a policy which may be adopted by those who are elected and if they wish, that’s it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to try to deal again with the choices available in terms of the distribution of housing powers. It is something which affects other regional municipalities as well as Toronto.

Housing policy could be exercised at the lower tier and that option remains open in this particular amendment because the Metro council members could simply decide there would be no statement of housing policy by Metro. Housing policy could also be set by the upper tier and that choice is open, according to these amendments, because Metro has the power to make a housing policy and to make it stick because it is mandatory.

The intermediate position in which both the upper and the lower tiers, both Metro and the area municipalities, set housing policies may be messy administratively but it is in much better accord with the way in which people feel about this very new field of actually setting housing policies in a deliberate kind of way. It also goes a long way to calming the fears of people within the metropolitan federation who fear that under the present chairman of Metropolitan Toronto the goal of having co-operation of all boroughs will not always be followed.

The city of Toronto is smarting badly from a decision by Metro council to ignore a virtually unanimous decision of Toronto city council and to destroy 250 homes on Toronto Island. The city of Toronto is equally upset about Metro decisions in relation to parking policy and the efforts by Metro to take over control of all parking -- which specifically means within the downtown area. The city of Toronto is upset over Metro decisions about future planning and development of the downtown core. And the city of Toronto for one feels that when decisions are going to be made in Metro that Toronto’s interests are simply going to be ignored -- not compromised with, not decisions that reflect Toronto’s input -- but Toronto will simply be ignored and trampled.

Now the borough of Scarborough is feeling a bit that way too. They don’t trust what’s happening, and something is needed in order to help them build trust in a Metro housing policy. What is needed is for the two levels of government to be able to carry out housing policies in consultation and in co-operation, without one side or the other holding a gun at the other’s throat.

You permitted two positions with this amendment: either all the boroughs have their own housing policies or Metro has a housing policy that determines everybody else’s. But you haven’t permitted a third, and that’s where you are so wrong with this particular amendment. It wasn’t requested in this way by the boroughs or by metropolitan council. You haven’t given them a chance to consider all of the options. When they come to look at the options, Mr. Chairman, they will find -- and this is why so many of them are complaining -- that one of the options, and the option with which they would be most comfortable at this time, is excluded. Because if they give Metro a housing policy, then it has mandatory force on the boroughs.

The other thing which has got even John Kruger upset, Mr. Chairman, is the drafting of this particular amendment. And I’d like the minister to say for the record what does the phrase mean when the amendment says “No bylaw shall be passed by the metropolitan council or by the council of an area municipality that does not conform with the housing policy statement of the metropolitan council.” Can he be precise about what that means and about how far that applies to zoning and restricted area bylaws?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, certainly I can’t be precise. That depends on the decision of Metropolitan Toronto council as to what the policy statement is. I haven’t seen it. Who has? They haven’t got one yet. It depends on whether or not they have a housing policy statement. So it’s kind of ridiculous, I think, for the hon. member to ask me if I know what it states.

Mr. Renwick: You didn’t ask them.

Mr. Cassidy: This is your legislation.

Mr. Renwick: You didn’t ask them. Did they dictate the wording for you?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, can I ask again, could the metropolitan council on its housing policy say that no house shall cost more than $50,000, for example, or could it say that no house shall cost less than $50,000? Can it say that no project will have more than 20 per cent social housing or could it say that no project will have less than 20 per cent social housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to try to interpret tonight or any other night what any council in Ontario is going to determine would be a good policy for them to enact -- whether it’s housing policy or whatever else it might be, bylaw or anything else. If the hon. member for Ottawa Centre would look back to the days when he was elected, I am sure he would understand what I am saying. I think it’s up to the council themselves to decide what they want to do for their people. Why would I want to try to interpret what someone in Metropolitan Toronto might want to enact six months from now or six years from now?

Mr. MacDonald: You are missing the point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not. You are.

Mr. Cassidy: The distribution of powers between Metro and the area municipalities is very much at stake. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the entire control of area municipalities over zoning is effectively being taken over or is being given to Metro council, should Metro council want to take it. If that’s the case, I think that that should be spelled out before this Legislature. It’s a kind of skeleton legislation and if the minister’s words are to be believed, then almost anything that Metro council wanted to put into that housing policy could go into that housing policy.

I don’t happen to think that Metro council is going to take over the zoning powers in those ways. But I do anticipate that there could be severe conflicts between Metro council and its housing policy and decisions that are made by local councils. You could find that there were two councils -- Metro and an area municipality -- which were each trying to achieve the same objectives and yet were doing so by different means. The area municipality would find that its power to be sensitive to its people, its neighbourhoods and to achieve those same objectives by its means was thwarted because of Metro’s housing policies and these particular sections, which are very imprecise and terribly badly drafted.

Mr. Kruger said on the phone to me today: “I wish there was a subsection 3 here that said nothing in subsection 2 shall be deemed as overriding the powers of the local municipalities to carry out their zoning and planning functions.” So even he recognizes the difficulties. Can the minister give us some more interpretation, or is it simply a set of powers as broad as Metro council tries to make them? Is that basically what he says we’re giving to Metro council with those amendments?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the only advice that I can give the hon. member right now would be this: I think he would be well advised not to quote people unless people have something in writing. He tried to quote me the other day, and I think it would be better if we were to understand that Mr. Kruger has not said anything to the government, in writing, about the particular draft we’re talking about. He may have said something which the member for Ottawa Centre has interpreted in his way, which he most often does. I don’t really know what Mr. Kruger said, nor will I know until I get it in writing. And I won’t accept it until it’s presented to us.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, because the minister is jamming the whole thing through. This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this with the others?

Mr. Cassidy: With great reluctance we will stack it.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll stack it along with a couple of others.

The minister has an amendment to section 11.

On section 11:

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following sections:

“202. All the assets and liabilities of the planning board for the Metropolitan Toronto planning area are assets and liabilities of the metropolitan corporation, and the metropolitan corporation for all purposes stands in the place and stead of the planning board for the Metropolitan Toronto planning area.

“203. Where a person who was employed by the planning board for the Metropolitan Toronto planning area immediately prior to Jan, 1, 1975, is employed by the metropolitan corporation without intervening employment,

“(a) employment with the planning board shall be deemed to have been employment with the metropolitan corporation for the purpose of sick leave credits, gratuities and holidays; and

“(b) the employee, if a member of the pension plan of the metropolitan corporation, shall be deemed not to be a person who enters the employ of an employer within the meaning of section 8(1)(a) of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.”

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman: on a point of order, could we discuss the section itself before we discuss the amendment for the simple reason that it would flow from the way in which section 11 is worded?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, we can do that.

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to have the opportunity to discuss this section, if I may.

Mr. Chairman: This amendment just adds two more subsections.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s correct. It is to carry out, as I see it, it is to clarify the effect of subsection 3.

Mr. Chairman, before speaking to this point, I would like to address a question to the minister for clarification. I was advised, following our meeting this morning, that the minister advised the group that he would expect me, pursuing the discussion, to move at this point that this section be referred to committee. Did the minister make that suggestion or did the people misunderstand him?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member possibly has been misinformed to a degree. I said to them that I felt that there would be opposition to this particular section of the bill, and if she wished she could bring forth an amendment to it. I don’t know why they said “in committee” -- perhaps they meant standing committee, because our conversations this morning referred mostly to standing committees.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s correct.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And before you left I believe, if I am not mistaken, I said I did not believe it would go to a standing committee. Is that right or wrong?

Mrs. Campbell: No, I had left at that point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m sorry. I did say to the group after the hon. member had left, then, that I felt that it would go to the committee of the whole House, and not to standing committee in regard to any section of the particular Act we are discussing tonight.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this has embarrassed me because two members of the group came to me -- no, as a matter of fact, more of them than that spoke to me, telling me that this was what the minister thought. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a matter for the discretion of the minister and that it would be impossible for me to move that this particular clause be referred to the standing committee. I would like clarification of that, if I may, before I proceed. Would the Chairman advise me?

Mr. Chairman: I see no possible way it can be referred to standing committee now, since it is in committee of the whole House.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, well this is my understanding, but I wanted it in the record lest the people think that I was remiss in not following the minister’s suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I have been deeply tempted in this matter to move, by way of amendment, that this subsection 3 be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: Is that under 199, subsection 3?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes. I have the amendment here, but I would like to discuss it because it does fly in the face of my beliefs in that this did come forward from metropolitan council as a resolution, as I understand it.

I would like, however, to put on the record this: At a meeting with the minister this morning, there were representatives of CORRA, representatives of the federation from East York, a representative from Leaside, a representative of the citizen portion of the planning board from Etobicoke, a representative from a ratepayer group in Don Mills, who reported that the federation of ratepayers of North York had not had a meeting and, therefore, could not put in a submission, but that the executive was concerned about this particular proposal.

Now, I would like to look at the timing of this particular section because, as I understand it, this matter was not debated through the stages of committee by Metropolitan council.

Mr. Cassidy: It is another Paul Godfrey special.

Mrs. Campbell: It was introduced by notice of motion at a meeting of council May 31. Now, there having been no notice given, it nevertheless passed council by a vote, I am informed, of 17 to 12. Among the 12 were four mayors of municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto. It seems to me that this is a very significant vote in the circumstances.

It was explained very carefully that there had been rumours, and nothing more than that, that there would be a move to eliminate the planning board. As the minister knows, there were two people present who specifically asked Mr. Godfrey if he had any such intention. Now, he can correct me if I am wrong in anything I say, because I am speaking from memory, but they were advised that there was no such intention.

There was also the statement made -- and this bothers me deeply -- because I think the minister would say that the person speaking was a very dispassionate kind of person, speaking very calmly, very uncritically on the surface when he discussed the altercation between the chairman of Metro and the executive of the planning board over the appointment of a new commissioner of planning for Metropolitan Toronto. He said, of course, he could not state that this was what hastened the move on the part of the Metro chairman, but he said that he had his own feelings about the matter.

I think it’s important for everyone in this Legislature to know the background of this particular resolution. On the face of it, it truly is not a resolution which comes forward as a result of the usual procedures of debate even at the executive committee level. Again, of course, the executive committee was bypassed. The minister said this couldn’t happen -- well, it does, of course, and this is a clear-cut example of it.

It was explained that the citizens of the metropolitan area have had more faith in the planning processes of the planning board than they have had in their elected representatives. One reason is that the planning board has undertaken to hear from the citizens before a policy is developed and during the development of policy. Whereas, it was explained, Metro makes its policy, then invites the people to react to it. This is a very important difference.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Don’t all those Metro politics sicken you somehow? All that mess?

Mr. Cassidy: It was much simpler in Prescott.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, compared to Prescott, I don’t know. It is simpler --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: How about Ottawa?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for St. George has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member has --

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): He is being provocative.

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t want you to go to sleep, that is all.

Mrs. Campbell: This is part of the background of what has happened. Now I know the minister, notwithstanding the fact I represent a downtown riding, doesn’t believe I know what goes on in the city and in Metro, but I think I am as aware of it, possibly more aware of it, than the minister. And I’m certainly very deeply aware of the consequences of this particular amendment. The people who saw me, two people who saw me afterwards, had advised that they had spoken to one of the government members -- I don’t know now what area he represents; Don Mills or somewhere -- who thought that perhaps it might be made permissive and not brought forward as a resolution. But he is not prepared to move.

The people were advised that the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) has fought against this clause and would continue to do so -- but unfortunately she isn’t here either. It makes it a very difficult position, for those of us who believe in local autonomy, to come forward and move that this clause be deleted. Yet, there’s no opportunity, as is so usually the case with this government, for a standing committee to look at this sort of thing and to get input from those who were denied the opportunity. The minister does know, Mr. Chairman, that there was a resolution from the city of Toronto planning board which was dealt with, I believe, on June 4, which was the first possible moment when the matter could be dealt with after the 31st, which had happened without notice. The minister has been advised that the city of Toronto is to debate the matter on Wednesday, the first date available to it. The minister is so concerned about local autonomy, yet he would deny the city of Toronto the opportunity to bring forward a resolution on this matter.

I have invited this minister to please tell us what the urgency is for pushing this at this time. With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, he has not given me an answer to that question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Or did you not listen?

Mrs. Campbell: I recognize, too, that sometimes the government may feel that withdrawing a portion of legislation indicates a sign of weakness. I explained to him that as far as I was concerned, as a member of the opposition, if this particular subsection were to be deleted and referred to a standing committee voluntarily, I for one would praise that action as the action of a government with concern for the input of people. I maintain that I would do just that.

What is the unholy haste? This does not take effect, as I read the bill, until January, 1975. Are we at the stage in this democracy that we are so fearful of listening to people we have to rush things through because “We’ll show those people where they get off”? What right have they to think they should have input into this decision? The minister has said, like Pontius Pilate, “This is not our responsibility; Metro asked for it.”

If that is the position, you have indeed good precedent for your position. I would like to point out that the people who were represented there today represent hundreds and, indeed in all likelihood, thousands of people across this metropolitan area. If the minister can advise this Legislature again that there is urgency -- which I don’t see - I invite him to do that, by way of an explanation.

Mr. Chairman, so far as I am concerned, I am sick to think of what this government in this bill has done to the future of the metropolitan area and to the goodwill of the people across it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this subsection stand as part of the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could say a word or two, Mr. Chairman. The member for St. George has put down some of the points I wanted to put on the record. Back in February, Paul Godfrey was asked if he intended to scrap the Metropolitan planning board; he said no. At about the same time, though, Mr. Wronski was hired by the province, having been the planning commissioner for Metro for several years and a capable person taken up by the province. The planning board wanted the deputy, John Bower; Paul Godfrey didn’t. The planning board went its way and Paul Godfrey reacted in what would appear to be a fit of pique. That’s about the best gloss you can put on it. He didn’t like what the planning board had done and therefore he decided to scrap it.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Cassidy: Therefore, the motion was brought forward before Metro council with a minimum amount of notice -- four, five or six days’ notice. It was never discussed on the executive committee, it wasn’t discussed with the boroughs, and the vote eventually was passed by 17 to 12 -- my notes here say “by the usual division.” I think the minister might understand that. In other words there have been a number of votes that have tended to side with Chairman Godfrey and give him effective control of Metro council. He usually has 16 or 17 votes and that was the score this time.

Most of the negative votes came from the city of Toronto, it may as well be said. Most of the positive votes came from the boroughs of Metro. Many of those decisions are made, not on the merits of the particular case at all, but on a sort of polarization, which unfortunately has taken place on Metro council in the last year or so since Paul Godfrey became the chairman.

I may as well note that the rest of the bill, apart from the sections on housing policy, as the minister pointed out earlier in the debate, had been passed by resolution by Metro council after studies and discussions and debate and so on, weeks, if not months, previously. But this was a last-minute addition which squeaked through Metro council, in terms of time. At least there was slightly more reputability than in the matter of housing policy we have just discussed. Nevertheless housing policy was never subject to full and open discussion in the way it should have been.

But particularly distressing is the fact that Metro council, through its planning board, has been embarking on a revision of its official plan. As the minister knows there was an official plan prepared in 1966. It never went before the Ontario Municipal Board and the minister, for various reasons, including the fact that the Metro planning area at that time went beyond Metro’s boundaries, but nevertheless it functioned pretty much as an official plan would function for Metro until it became clear in the early 1970s that it needed to be redrafted.

The redrafting which is under way in a programme which is being called the Metroplan, lays very heavy emphasis on citizen participation, on consultation with citizens, and on the function of the Metropolitan Toronto planning board. Clearly the way in which the Metroplan exercise is going to take place, if Metro is serious about participation, is going to have to be changed pretty drastically, because now there won’t be a Metro planning board to carry it out. Now the planning board is going to be the council of the metropolitan municipality itself.

Planning committees may be appointed by the metropolitan council but there is no guarantee that they will be, or what composition they may have. One would hope that they will appoint planning advisory committees or other such bodies to do the work of the present planning board. Nevertheless one of the cornerstones of the Metro plan exercise is now devastated; it no longer exists because of this abrupt decision of Metro council, taken for other reasons, to do away with the planning authority.

What is particularly concerning about that, Mr. Chairman, is that the Metroplan exercise had a number of different stages. There was going to be an effort to draw up a series of policy goals -- publicity, study and analysis by the planning board and its staff; an effort, after the citizen input had been gathered, to bring it all together, and then eventually a submission by the planning board of a series of goals and policies for the Metropolitan Toronto region which would then go to the executive and go to Metropolitan Toronto council.

The thing that the citizens on the Metropolitan Toronto planning board had to contribute was the objectivity of not being involved day to day in borough politics or Metro politics and the fact that they had time to concentrate on the exercise and to think in the long term. This is so difficult for the minister or for myself, or for other members of this Legislature, to do, or for that matter is difficult for municipal politicians who have to deal with day-to-day decisions to do. It is very difficult to think in the long term, as I am sure the minister is aware.

The quality of that citizen participation by the planning board depended of course a great deal on the calibre of the people on the Metropolitan planning board. I don’t know all the members; I know a number who I think were very capable and I hope that those I don’t know were equally capable.

But at any rate the process was going with a citizenry who presumably would be somewhat informed; a planning board that was certainly familiar with planning concepts and had both politicians’ input and input from people who were more citizen than politician; the staff, then trying to pull it together under the guidance of the planning board; eventually the planning board taking it again and sending it up to Metro council -- a number of different points of view.

The problem in scrapping the planning board is that some of those points of view that could have helped to influence the Metro Toronto official plan for 1976 will be absent. The decision-making will be done by a group of very harried, very busy Metropolitan Toronto politicians who find it very difficult, because of the exigencies of their job, to think in the long term.

Because of that preoccupation with what they have to do over what they might want to do or maybe what they ought to do, these Metro Toronto politicians will tend to leave the decision-making, or the decision formulation, to their staff and therefore a lot more of the power, relatively speaking is going to get transferred from politicians and citizens on the planning board into the hands of staff. I accept that it’s possible that the planning advisory committees which may be set up under this Act could prevent some of those problems being created. If they are really given a lot of responsibility they can do some of the jobs that the present planning board could do. If that’s the case, more power to them.

However, there’s been no thought by the government about this problem, despite the commitment that the government occasionally makes to citizen participation. Once again, since this section is not to take effect until Jan. 1, 1975, there is no reason why in the normal order of things the Province of Ontario couldn’t have said to the Metro people: “Look, you passed this thing pretty hastily after including the planning board in your plans for the Metro plan review over the period of last year or so. Now don’t you think you ought to sit down and, if you want to scrap the planning board that’s fine, but if you’re going to scrap the planning board, think through how you are going to get as much citizen participation as possible, given the fact that your politicians can’t devote the necessary time to it.”

It would have been quite in order I submit for the province to say, “Yes, we accept what you want to do in principle, effective Jan. 1. Yes, we’ll see you get the legislation in time, but now have another look at it and come back and tell us just how you want to do it and see whether you want the legislation to reflect any new instrumentalities, any new techniques that you intend to use to replace what the planning board would have done.” Of course that hasn’t been done.

I’m in the same quandary as the member for St. George. I feel there is a mistake being made here. I accept that it’s the right of Metro council to scrap its planning board and I’m not completely unsympathetic to the steps that are being taken across the province to bring planning boards more closely into conjunction with councils.

The city of Toronto, for example, has brought the planning staff directly under the control of city council, even though the planning board retains a certain independence. The Metro planning board formerly had the right, as I understand it, to determine the priorities of the planning staff and I don’t think that was an acceptable position to have in the long run. I think there should have been more political control over the planners, if not over the planning board.

But nevertheless, the way this is being done is objectionable and once again I think the province could and should have a look through it in a much more deliberate kind of fashion. Given the fact that all that was going to require was that next October or November or, praise God, next December when we usually see these bills, there would have been another bill on the order paper related to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. If the price of consultation is that we have to have an extra bill a year for Metropolitan Toronto, then I am prepared to pay it, Mr. Chairman. I don’t object to the volume of bills. I object to the way in which they are put forward and the way in which inadequate consultation accompanies the bills.

I have one other point that I want to make -- and I hope that the minister will respond to the points that I have just made and that have been made by the member for St. George -- and that is that the way the amendments from the minister, which we have just seen, are drafted, they have the effect of possibly permitting the Metro corporation to decimate its planning staff by simply refusing to take a number of them on to the Metropolitan Toronto payroll. Right now, as I understand it, there is a separate payroll for a separate entity called the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board which pays that staff, and it has to be a matter of positive decision by the Metro council as to whether it’ll hire each, any or all of the planners and other people who work for the planning board.

I don’t think that that’s acceptable, given the fact that the two bodies have been so closely related. I would therefore move a further amendment, which could be considered after the amendments that have been suggested by the minister.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 11 be further amended by adding a new section, 203(a): “Every person who is employed by the planning board for the Metropolitan Toronto planning area immediately prior to Jan. 1, 1975, shall be offered employment by the Metropolitan corporation for not less than a year at not less than their former rate of pay with the planning board.”

Mr. Cassidy: I am open to the minister or his officials as to a reworking of that, but the basic reason for that is to prevent any kind of a purge in the takeover of the planning staff by the Metropolitan corporation.

The minister will say, “Well, of course, there is not going to be a purge.” And I, being reasonable, would say too, ‘Well, look, I don’t think there is going to be a purge either.” But frankly, with the present leadership of Metropolitan Toronto, you never know when that kind of opportunity might be grasped by the present Metropolitan chairman. His opinions about the appointment of the Metropolitan Toronto planning commissioner are known and have already been put on the record by the member for St. George. That’s not the guy you wanted. I think it should be put on the record right now, just in case Paul Godfrey decides he wants to have a purge, that we should put into legislation a guarantee of a year’s employment to anybody who is working for the planning board at the end of December this year, or, if the minister wants a slight amendment, to anybody who is working for the planning board now and is working for the planning board at the end of the year. A year would seem to be a reasonable period. If they want a purge after that time, so be it. But I don’t think that they should be able to seize the excuse of a transfer of responsibilities to do it in that underhanded kind of way.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder how we could place this motion, already having a proposed 203(a). I am not sure just how it would fit in.

Mr. Cassidy: I believe that maybe it could be considered after we consider these amendments. Perhaps the minister would like to reply.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll just hold this then, will we?

Mr. Cassidy: By all means, yes.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Until we dispose of the others.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The discussion for the last few moments has been on, really, shall subsection 3 of section 199 of the Act, which is found in section 11 of the bill, stand as part of the bill. And I’ll place that question. Shall that --

Mrs. Campbell: Could we hear from the minister?

Mr. Chairman: Oh, yes, I am sorry. Does the hon. minister have --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, could we hear from the minister, Mr. Chairman? Maybe we could discuss a couple of those amendments.

Mr. Chairman: They are separate matters, that’s all. If we could clear up this one first of all, which is early in this section, it might be an orderly way to do it.

The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to reply to both the member for St. George and the member for Ottawa Centre on the basis of what they have said.

I agree with them that if we have a resolution from Metropolitan Toronto council we should deal with it. Both of them have said so. We have a resolution, and I wonder why their concerns are so strong when we do have a resolution. I have it here in my hand. I think they have a copy of it. Brought first of all on May 24, 1974 and adopted, as the clerk says. May 31 by the council.

Mr. Cassidy: But not by the same procedure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is a matter that has been discussed for some while as to the merits of having a planning board separate from the elected council representatives. We as a government feel that there is considerable merit in having elected representatives being responsible for every facet of council and not to have separate boards and separate commissions. And in my opinion when Metropolitan council has enacted this resolution, as they have, that certainly is in conformity with the policies we have implemented throughout Ontario, where we have placed planning at the upper tier, at the council level. Now if the council decides that they want to have a planning board advisory committee, fair enough. This is what would happen. They would have advisory committees.

I don’t see any purging of staff. They are going to need staff and certainly it wouldn’t be in order for us to say that after Jan. 1, 1975 we ensure that all those who are on the planning board would have a year or more employment because from now on what happens? How many did they hire from today to the end of the year?

I would like to say to the hon. member that really what we have here is an Act which gives more power to the elected people and if those who elect those people are not in agreement with the way they enforce the planning or any other function of council, then I think it is up to them to replace those members, the same as it is in any other democratic society. Certainly we think that this Act does not mean that we have acted hastily. It means that we are doing what we feel should be done throughout the province as time goes on.

Mr. Cassidy: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman: One is, do I gather from what the minister says that he would accept a guarantee of employment for one year for any person who was an employee, let’s say, at June 1 or May 31 of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board and continues to be an employee at the end of December? That is the first point I wanted to raise. Maybe he could answer that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am sorry Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask the hon. member to say it again.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, the minister said that a guarantee of employment to anybody working for the planning board at the end of December might benefit somebody who was hired in September or October. Okay, I accept that.

Is he willing, then, to accept a guarantee of employment to anybody who was employed by the planning board at June 1 this year and continues to be employed at the end of December, or perhaps to anybody who was employed at the end of 1973 and continues to be employed at the end of 1974? Would he accept that kind of a guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would have no objections whatsoever in ensuring employment for an employee at a date as of June 1 as the member has said, or something similar to that. My objection was, and I think it is well taken that we can’t ensure employment to new people coming on from now to the end of the year. We have in the regional bills, which we have implemented in the past, ensured that all employees would have at least one year’s employment, and I go along with that.

I think that is fair enough. I see nothing -- and I didn’t expect that there would be any purge, nor do I foresee a purge. If this will help forestall any of the fears of the hon. member for St. George or Ottawa Centre, I’d be pleased to bring in an amendment or change an amendment, whatever it may be.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister has some officials here. Would it be possible to ask them to look at the amendment that I moved to change it around in order to suit the draftsman’s kind of requirements and possibly stand that part of the bill until --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, sure we can. That would be quite in order and we will bring it forth.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate that. There is another point I wanted to raise before we come to a vote on this, Mr. Chairman -- really two points. One is that this section 11 is effective on Jan. 1, 1975. We are therefore not under any kind of an urgent demand that we act now in the way that we are, for example, with the sections related to the mall, which come at the very end of the bill.

The member for St. George and I both made the point that we think that the disbandment of the planning board could have been much better handled. I’m saying that it could be much better handled if it was deferred until the fall. Then all of the matters which were raised during the meeting this morning by citizen groups which are left hanging in the abyss -- over the future of the Metroplan and so on -- could be fully discussed in and around Metropolitan Toronto and the Metro council.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, when we get to subsection 3 of section 199 of the bill as found in section 11 of these amendments, we are going to oppose the disbandment of the Metropolitan planning board at this time -- that is June 24. If Metro council, having thought it through thoroughly and having put it through the area municipalities and so on, wants to request that again in the fall, then we would support it, in order to still meet the deadline of Jan. 1, 1975. We will stack that division when it comes.

The other point that I would make to the minister is that I don’t think he is aware, having come from a small municipality, of the kinds of pressures which are being exerted upon elected people in the big municipalities. As he is aware I have experience with the city of Ottawa. When I was on the council of the city of Ottawa it was a 25-hour or 30-hour a week job. In the course of the three or four years since I went on that council, that job if done effectively has now stretched to be a 40- or 45-hour a week job for people at the aldermanic level of the city of Ottawa.

In order to do an effective job, for somebody who is on the board of council of the city of Ottawa and is also on the executive committee of the regional municipality it’s a 55- or 60-hour a week job. And it keeps on stretching year after year. That’s Ottawa, a regional municipality of 480,000 people.

You come down here to Metro Toronto -- 2¼ million people -- and say, “Now what are the problems there?” Each alderman in the city of Toronto for example has 60,000 constituents, as many as most of the members in this Legislature, particularly those from rural areas. They have that to begin with -- a constituency as large, or almost as large, as your average provincial riding. Secondly, they have heavy responsibilities with executive committee and with administrative committees that make decisions in a way that we don’t have here in the Legislature. It’s as though each one of them is a member, not of one cabinet but of two and sometimes three. That’s the kind of problem they have to cope with.

Men and women can only be pushed so far. We cannot expect good decisions from people who are being run ragged month after month, day after day, week after week, with 60- and 70-hour weeks. Why does the minister think that a man like Karl Jaffary is getting out of Metro politics and out of municipal politics? I’ve known Karl for a long time -- I know him well. He was being run ragged. He was doing an effective job, one of the best jobs -- acknowledged by everybody -- in the entire Metropolitan federation. But the time he had to simply sit and think was compressed within about four or five hours of a Sunday morning, and that was when he had also hoped that he might be able to get a bit of time with his family.

That simply is an intolerable kind of condition to which we put our politicians at the municipal level in large federations like Metro. Therefore, when the minister talks glibly about bringing these responsibilities into the elected representatives’ hands, he ought to be aware that these elected representatives need help. More and more they will just see the tip of the iceberg and there will be people around them who are putting material up to them, who are feeding them decisions that they are simply rubberstamping or approving.

It’s the same in this Legislature and in the federal Parliament. We are all on the road to becoming like American senators or representatives who are very decorative and provide leadership and that kind of thing, but who are supported by a tremendous staff who insulate us, who protect us, who do things for us, who act on our behalf. This is happening more and more and I think it’s cause for very serious concern.

We will oppose the section, Mr. Chairman, for now.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might express my concern on one more point. I wonder what the minister thinks is going to happen with this board between now and January of 1975.

I wonder if he has any idea of what the morale is likely to be in trying to do the job for which they were legitimately appointed. Has he given any thought to that? Because, if one is trying to deal with a Metropolitan plan with the realization that whatever you do may well be an exercise in futility, again I would express my concern for the quality of decision that can be made by people who recognize the fact that at this moment, or very shortly thereafter, they are dead-ended in trying to deal with a plan which is absolutely essential for this area. I think the minister would agree with me that an official plan is essential for this area.

Could the minister give us some idea as to how he thinks they can function in terms of the guidelines described as their area of responsibility until the end of this year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, all I can say to the hon. member is that as far as I am concerned, that has to be worked out by the board and the Metropolitan council. I would think there is nothing more important than that we carry on planning. I agree with the hon. member about that. I think they will carry on, on the understanding that someone will have to replace them when they decide they don’t want to act on the board or as an advisory committee. If they decide they wish not to carry on, I suppose there is nothing you or I can do to change their decision. In any event, we expect the planning will carry on in the next six months the same as it has in the past.

To the member for Ottawa Centre, I would say that you have made quite a few points as to where a person comes from and how much work is done and how many brains there may be in the city. I have the greatest respect for those born in the city, who have such great wisdom and run the cities and so on. But I don’t think that wisdom is exclusive to those who live in cities. I think some rural members might have something to add to what has happened in the cities. I believe I could contribute, with the help of those rural members who are in this House, to what might take place.

Mr. Cassidy: But I am talking about my experience of the workload.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And could I say to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that I think I have without doubt spent more time in a rural council in one week than you spent in a month.

Mr. Chairman: We will deal with the first matter. Those in favour of subsection 3 of section 199 of the Act, as found in section 11 of the bill standing as part of the bill?

Those in favour of the subsection standing as part of the bill will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

We will stack this along with the others.

Is there anything before we come to the minister’s amendment, which was an addition to that section?

Shall Mr. Irvine’s motion stand as part of the bill?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the draftsman is just preparing a new section 203(a). Possibly we could stand that until the minister has had a chance to see it in the course of subsequent debate.

Mr. Chairman: Section 203(a). Maybe it is an amendment to --

Mr. Cassidy: If it is ready, that’s fine.

Mr. Chairman: No, this is the one -- the hon. minister’s was a new 203(a) and (b). I am just reminding you.

Mr. Cassidy: I can see now the draftsman has it ready. It is here now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall I read it as though the minister had read it? We don’t need a seconder. I’ll just read it then:

Moved by Mr. Irvine that section 11 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section 203(a) subsection (1):

“The Metropolitan corporation shall offer to employ every person who on June 1, 1974, is employed by the planning board for the Metropolitan Toronto planning area, and who continues to be so employed until Dec. 31, 1974.”

And subsection (2):

“Any person who accepts employment under subsection 1 shall be entitled to receive a wage or salary up to and including Dec. 31, 1975, of not less than he was receiving on June 1, 1974.”

Subsection (3):

“Nothing in this section prevents the Metropolitan corporation from terminating the employment of an employee for cause.”

Shall this motion then carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question which I would ask and I might be able to nod at the minister to indicate -- the business about not less than what they were earning on June 1, 1974. I thought it was normally the last day of December, 1974, which is the last day prior to the change of employment. The precedent for this particular amendment comes from the series of regional Acts where we have similar continuation provisions for people who are being transferred from one employer to another municipal employer. And that back-dates them about six or seven months, which may seem a bit unfair.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The answer is no.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, the precedent would be then that June 1 would be the precedent -- is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The answer is yes.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, this parallels the municipal legislation which we have had before, and it would be acceptable. I thank the minister for accepting it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry then?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comment, question or amendment to any later section of the bill? If so, which section?

Mr. Cassidy: One question. On the mall, which I understand Metro is anxious to get open any second now, in fact the trucks will probably be moving the minute the Lieutenant Governor passes this, can the minister explain why subsection 6 was put in? Can he explain the thinking there? I am not quite sure whether he intends to give or take away powers.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member. It is another part of the Act which is permissive. They may pass bylaws prohibiting or regulating or licensing various acts and conditions outlined in (a), (b), (c) and (d). I think it is fairly explanatory. The fees for the licences and how they can operate within the mall is set out there. It is merely up to the council to decide whether or not they wish to prohibit or provide for these matters being enacted within the mall, that is all.

Mr. Cassidy: I guess really I am basically confused because I had understood that the mall legislation was going forward, but that Toronto could not do certain things that it wanted to do. Now, I can’t find out what those things it can’t do are apart from the hawking of literature, which as my friend from Lakeshore points out, is covered under civil liberties legislation. The handing out of literature advertising body-rub joints is apparently covered under the freedom of the press. It is the freedom of something else, I am not quite sure what.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not sure what the hon. member is referring to. As I understand it, this meets with the approval of the council. It may be that they want something else, but I am not aware of it.

Mr. Lawlor: Just a moment, if I may, Mr. Chairman, with respect to subsection 4, the one which you and I locked horns on in committee on some previous occasion. I just think it is the opportune moment to mention it again, in the doleful hope, perhaps, of persuading the minister that his policy is misconceived, and, but not on this occasion, abortive.

It tickles me, let me put it that way, like a feather, you know, under the chin, to see you forced into a comer on this particular one, because for some mysterious reason it runs against your grain. Nevertheless, in order to have the continuity in the mall concept, on this particular occasion at least, you are obliged to save them harm from lawsuits from those who are disgruntled and lie outside the mall, or even from lawsuits from those who have suffered business loss, if they can so establish it, within the mall itself.

We have pointed it out to you on a past occasion, when the Hamilton bill was before us, not very long ago, I believe, and at that time you conjured the thought that in all future legislation -- you did not like that particular -- no safeguarding clause would be placed in there and if they wanted malls, they could suffer the infliction bred by malls, namely lawsuits. We pointed out, and I hope you agree with this, that with the initiation of such legislation -- in other words, with that clause deleted from this present legislation -- the possibility of a mall being instituted at all becomes a very moot question indeed.

As a local politician, I am sure if you were in the seat, you would not jeopardize yourself or risk the chance of getting a multi-thousand-dollar suit brought against you, which might just stick, against the amenities provided by a mall. I think it is a sine qua non of the institution of malls, their continuity. If you think they are aesthetically okay; if you think they add to the vitality of the community; if you think the whole concept is congenial to the contemporary temperament, which I happen to do; I think it is friend-making. I think it is on the whole a very genial and a very civic thing to do to have a mall.

In its general comportment there are some underbelly features and some side effects which are a bit unpalatable or distasteful but still, on the whole, the general concept weighs strongly.

I am saying to you, Mr. Minister, that if you delete these clauses from your future legislation, you won’t have malls in the Province of Ontario because no local politician would be prepared to take the financial and court risks involved in bringing them into being from some disgruntled merchant who happens to be up the street and finds himself, as he believes, in some state of disrepair because of the establishment, for the general amenity and general tone of the community, of a mall on his doorstep.

What he normally wants is himself to be in it. But if he happens to be excluded because of the geographical position of the mall and is next door his chagrin, his resentment is such as to very well lead him into instituting a suit and tying up the whole thing in a prolonged lawsuit; and even, conceivably, being able to establish his case before the courts.

What I am doing here at the moment is begging you to give, over the summer -- you have been forced into establishing it here and maintaining it one further year against your grain. I want you to think about it very deeply over the summer and come to the conclusion that it is a maintainable feature, a feasible feature, a necessary feature, in all legislation dealing with things of this type.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: I want you to change your mind about this particular problem. I think you are wrong; I think it should be said in the open House. I have said it the best I know how and I would hope that as we go into bills committee next spring, a new and enlightened minister, dancing with flame, unaligned, baptised in a new fire, will come out.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): You just made his day.

Mr. McIlveen: Amen.

Mr. Lawlor: Amen.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member for Lakeshore, I shall say to him, in all sincerity, if I am with the private bills committee next year, I am bound to be enlightened, there is just no doubt about it, with the wisdom which comes from him. I will endeavour to ensure --

Mr. Cassidy: There would be far more wisdom here than on that side.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- whether or not it is proper to have a mall without liability. We have written, as I have said before in this House, to the council and informed them this would be the last year with the exemption, without liability. We will give it further thought. We have had other municipalities request the exemption. We have an established permanent mall in the city of Ottawa, of which most of us in eastern Ontario at least are aware and it works out very well. There are particular people --

Mr. Lawlor: Except it is between street blocks in a different way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in this area, in Toronto, who are not happy with this mall and I think the member for Lakeshore is aware that there are some objections. Let us weigh the pros and cons and we will try to see what we can come up with for another time.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, Is the minister saying that next year he will not exempt Metro from liability? Or that he may not exempt them and that he’s not quite sure what his decision is going to be at this time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, what I’ve said in writing is that Toronto will not be exempt next year.

Mr. Lawlor: You won’t have a mall.

Mr. Cassidy: You won’t have a mall then. Is there any other alternative the minister is putting forward? Or is he going to subject Toronto to the possibility of endless litigation over this matter from one or two disgruntled shopowners who for various reasons want to have a flood of automobiles passing by outside their gates?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, we will deal with that in the fullness of time.

Mr. Chairman: Are there further comments, questions or amendments in any later section of the bill? If not we have four matters to be decided on by votes.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, before you call in the members, there has been an agreement about taking another bill and stacking the votes on this one until that one has been held.

Mr. Chairman: I understand we are going to be studying Bill 99 next. Do we have the permission of the House to leave these votes to be stacked with any possible future votes?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are agreed. We understand there are several amendments which are to be proposed in Bill 99, and in order to save the time of the House, if two divisions might be required, we would agree to proceed at this point with the discussion of Bill 99 in committee and then if the House requires a division it could be dealt with at that point.

Mr. Chairman: Is everyone agreed? Agreed then.

Mr. Cassidy: That is a heck of a lot better planning than on that side, Mr. Chairman.

CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD ACT

Mr. Chairman: Bill 99, An Act to amend the City of the Lakehead Act, 1968-1969. Any comments, questions, or amendments? On which section?

Mr. Foulds: Section 2 and section 3, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 2 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Section 3 of the said Act, as amended by the statutes of Ontario, 1972, chapter 36, section 1, is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

5(a) notwithstanding subsection 5, the city of Thunder Bay shall make application to the Ontario Municipal Board for the division into wards of the city of Thunder Bay.

5(b) the distribution of wards shall be as follows: 1. One ward which shall comprise the area of the geographic township of Mclntyre as it existed on May 1, 1969. 2. One ward which shall comprise the area of the geographic township of Neebing as it existed on May 1, 1969. 3. Five wards which together shall comprise the area of the city of Fort William as it existed on May 1, 1969. 4. Five wards which together shall comprise the area of the city of Port Arthur as it existed on May 1, 1969.

5(c) such application shall be made on or before Aug. 1, 1974.

5(d) the Ontario Municipal Board shall hear such application within 30 days of the application being made.

Mr. Foulds: I also have amendments, Mr. Chairman, to section 3, which are complementary, and I ask your guidance in procedure as to whether I should place them at this time and then discuss them together or one by one?

Mr. Chairman: You had better place this one first, I think. Perhaps I don’t have to read it over. Mr. Foulds has moved this amendment. If you feel that they are very closely related I suppose we might as well have that too.

Mr. Foulds moves that section 3 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

Subsections 2 and 3 of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor: The 12 aldermen shall be elected by wards, one alderman to represent each ward established under section 3, subsections 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d).

Mr. Foulds: I can give you a copy of that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: If the amendment to section 2 does not carry, of course, the amendment to subsection 3 would not be applicable I understand.

Mr. Foulds: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of these amendments is to establish, in effect, a true ward system in Thunder Bay, instead of the at-large modified ward system that we have at the present time. I spoke extensively on Friday during the debate on principle of the bill and I didn’t intend to repeat those arguments. I would like to make one or two comments in response to the further comments of the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) and the minister. I would ask the minister to listen fairly carefully and to try to understand the sincerity with which I put forward these amendments. I have given the minister advance copies of the amendments so he would have time to consider them. If any other members wish copies of them, I have a few extras here that I would be glad to make available.

I want to stress that there has been, not agitation, but certainly widespread concern and widespread action in the city of Thunder Bay for the establishment of a true ward system which goes back to 1971.

In 1971 a petition was presented, to the clerk of the city of Thunder Bay on Nov. 15, and that petition was signed by literally thousands of citizens requesting that a true ward system be established. That petition was acknowledged by the city clerk but, I understand, not forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board under section 13 of the Act. The citizens at that time did not understand that, according to section 13, they had the further right to go to the Municipal Board directly with their petition.

Subsequently -- if I can just fill in a bit of history here -- the answer given in Thunder Bay was that at that time, in 1971, they were bound by the original terms of the Act to the system that they then had for two elections. Consequently, a series of public meetings began last February, I believe, after city council established a committee to examine the electoral system of the city.

There are conflicting reports about the number of submissions made. One figure I’ve seen is 1,800, the other 1,400. But at least 1,400 submissions were made to the city council, 80 per cent of which requested the true or strict ward system.

Naturally, there is some hesitancy on the part of the majority of council to maintain the status quo. That is because this is the way that they have been elected. But, as I pointed out on Friday, it is possible for a person to be elected from any one of the present four wards without receiving a single vote from the people in that ward because the electoral system is an at-large system.

And I think I said on Friday, as eloquently as I could, that the makeup of the present council is neither economically, socially nor geographically representative. There are large sections of the city, such as intercity, Westfort, Current River and the large middle section of Port Arthur, which do not have representation on council now.

The minister indicated to me that the ministry had not received any correspondence on the matter. To be honest, I don’t know why that is. Because if you read the Thunder Bay papers -- and I happen to have a file of clippings here -- it was one of the most hotly debated issues, both in public and in the press, in the early months of this year. I won’t read these clippings, but they deal with many aspects of the problem, reporting many small community meetings in various areas of the city, culminating, as I indicated on Friday, in the large public meeting in March at city hall.

Also, a petition from the Thunder Bay District Labour Council had been presented to the city clerk on April 19. That petition, which was prepared very hastily, was signed by just over 200 people, which goes beyond the requirement of section 13 of the Act. I think they didn’t go farther than that simply because they felt it met the requirements of the Act. The petition was to request the Ontario Municipal Board to establish a true ward system of nomination and election in time for the civic election due in December, 1974.

Now, I don’t really fault the ministry in this whole business because it was clearly stated by Mr. Ian Reid of your department, in Thunder Bay on March 22 that it would be possible for Thunder Bay to institute a true ward system for the 1974 election; that there could be 12 wards with one alderman per ward. And Mr. Reid indicated to the Thunder Bay newspaper, as well as I believe to public, or at least, council meetings in Thunder Bay, that such legislation could be introduced and passed giving ample time for the implementation of the system.

I believe that my amendments meet the requirements that -- in fact, in all sincerity and if I may be immodest -- I think that they hit a happy compromise. You still have the balance between Port Arthur and Fort William, in that each of those former cities still has five representatives on council. The difference is that each of those now large wards will be divided into five small wards. And they will be elected only by the people in those wards, in the small wards. In other words, there will be no longer a Port Arthur ward or a Fort William ward, but there will be five wards in each of those areas.

I also think that the amendments I have put forward not only get that balance, which I think was necessary for the first few years of amalgamation between Port Arthur and Fort William, and is probably continuing to be necessary, but it also guarantees representation for the two former tiny municipalities that were taken in -- Neebing and Mclntyre. Each of those wards will receive a representative according to these amendments and they will be elected only by the people in their wards.

There is no doubt in my mind -- and I went to a number of the public meetings in Thunder Bay; I was not able to get to the big one in city hall -- but there is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming concensus of people within the city is that they would like a true ward system instituted and they would like it instituted for the December elections.

And what worries me -- what really worries me -- and I imagine that there is a certain element of paranoia about this, and there may be a certain element of unnecessary unease within the electorate of the city of Thunder Bay, but to put it bluntly, we were scuppered over the name business by a ballot which presented the Lakehead, and Thunder Bay. There is a great fear among the people I talked to in Thunder Bay that if you have a ballot in December, a plebiscite, which is now being talked about, establishing a ward system and an at-large system, that on that ballot will appear two or three varieties of the ward system and one at-large system. There is that genuine fear and I frankly would not put it past whoever makes up those ballots in Thunder Bay.

There is one other comment that I would like to make which I can’t think of at the present time -- it just flitted through my brain there and it is gone. But I think that these amendments would serve the best interests of the people. They do not discriminate -- this is the point that I wanted to make. They do not discriminate -- this is the point that I wanted to make. They do not discriminate against any of the present incumbents, because I have compromised to the extent that I have not made residency in the ward a requirement for running in the ward.

It seems to me that if the people of a ward wish to elect someone from outside of their boundaries and they are the ones within that ward to make that decision, that should be their choice. So any of the present aldermen could run again. We will not be disenfranchising any of the present incumbents from running because they happen to live in the same ward as somebody else.

And with that, Mr. Minister, I would like to conclude my remarks. I would hope that you would give these amendments serious consideration and I hope that they would be acceptable to you and to your officials.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest when this bill received second reading. I enjoyed very much the comments by the member for Port Arthur concerning the situation of representation within the community. I think the amendments which he now is proposing would develop an effective ward system within the community. We in this party will certainly support these amendments.

It appears to me that the division of the two major communities, the former cities of Fort William and Port Arthur, into five particular wards would be of an advantage. It would certainly avoid the possibility that persons could well be elected to represent the various communities without, in fact, receiving strong voting support in that person’s particular community. Since all of the electors within the community are able to vote for aldermen, it seems to me that the development of a proper ward system would get a better sense of community and also would encourage a better sense of balanced representation on the municipal council for the city of Thunder Bay.

The amendments which are proposed seem to have great public support. There has been interest, as has already been suggested, shown in the press and in public meetings. And I think the response of the citizens who appear to wish to try this more representative system should be encouraged. I would suggest that the minister review these amendments because, of course, like anything else, it might be that they could be improved upon. But while he is pondering them I think that we are really in a good position so far as the timing of all this is concerned that if these amendments were to pass, a proper electoral procedure could be developed in good time for the elections expected in December.

Comments were made with respect to the name of the community and the rather interesting difficulties that developed when the two names that were preferred were in fact not the ones suggested. I would think that if we accept these amendments we will be in a position to serve the citizens of Thunder Bay as they attempt to develop a better sense of community within the regional government, which is pulling together two former and well-known cities as well as the two smaller townships. The balanced representation takes into account the fact that the two smaller townships, even though their populations might not so warrant it, still would maintain at least for the time being a clear representation on the council.

It may well be that in a couple of years from now, we would want to return to this bill and develop 12 wards, each with a more or less equal population, so that if one community has grown and another has not, that will balance off the representation by population. But just as we have the changes in our own provincial distribution and have boundaries which don’t always balance exactly by population, so I think we can live with this progressive change, which would lead eventually to having wards more equal in size as the community develops, perhaps over the next five or even 10 years.

Right now, this amendment seems to make sense to me and as I have said, we will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, just a word on this in support of the amendment. It seems to me that the amendment makes very great sense from another point of view and that is the matter of responsibility. The person who is elected under the scheme you propose in the bill doesn’t know exactly what his territory is. He is, in fact, responsible for the whole area, and responsible for no specific area. The citizen doesn’t know where to go to get responsibility pinned down if he has a complaint and I suppose eventually a lot of citizens go to one representative and a lot go to another. But the person who does a good job and gets a reputation for doing a good job gets the bulk of the cases to solve.

I think this is wrong. The person who wants to be a bit lazy and who perhaps gets a reputation of not getting results gets little to do and so he can coast. If he gets his name in the paper once in a while for something he says, then he keeps it before the voters and perhaps when the next election comes around at least his name is known, so he gets away with taking very small responsibility.

I think this is important, Mr. Chairman, and I urge the minister to think in terms of one alderman for one particular slice of territory. Then the voters in that territory know where to go. They know that Mr. A is responsible for this area and Mr. B for another area. The voters know exactly where to go, they know what results they’re going to get from those aldermen and they know how to judge that alderman on the basis of performance.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I think the time is here for us to think very seriously of the ward system which has been proposed by the hon. member. That area at one time, as we know, had real difficulty in coming together, and a shotgun marriage, in effect, was performed. Now we have this experimentation so far in this particular bastardized form of democracy and I think the time is here to change that. With the amendment suggested here, I think those old hostilities can be very well forgotten and some real unity can be achieved.

So I would hope that the minister will see the common sense in this step being made at this time, not being postponed for another period, but being taken now for the good of the community involved and for the good. perhaps, of the good name of democracy.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say a word about this, Mr. Chairman. I naturally support the amendment and I’d like to put it into more general context, because I think it’s about time that the government took, as a matter of policy, the view that in any large municipality it will support and, in fact, it will insist upon a ward system being adopted by that municipality, and that in those municipalities it should be a true ward system and not the kind of bastardized version which was put forward in this bill for the city of Thunder Bay.

Mr. McIlveen: Did you tell them about the UAW in Oshawa? They’re all against the ward system.

Mr. Cassidy: The UAW is against the ward system? Okay. The UAW isn’t right on every issue. Okay?

Mr. McIlveen: Right on. Right on.

Mr. Cassidy: The UAW, as a matter of fact, is wrong, and maybe even in Oshawa because of the number of people who work in the auto plants there, people who are, say, of the social station and occupation of the hon. member for Oshawa, are underrepresented on that city council because of the at- large system that apparently prevails in Oshawa. In other words, there may be one section of town where people with high incomes live and it’s simply overwhelmed by the vote of people who are workers at the auto plant of General Motors.

The situation in most municipalities, however, is reversed, Mr. Chairman, and that is, specifically, that where you have an at-large system it favours people who come from higher income groups, who are better educated, who live in the suburbs, over people who have less education, lower incomes and who live in the cores of cities. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, it is a class measure to have an at-large system in any city of any size.

Now the minister is liable to say, with his usual kind of Quixotic consistency, that this is what people want -- meaning this is what the councils want. The responsibility of the Province of Ontario is to set the framework within which municipal government works and then hope like crazy that people will carry it off responsibly and well. There are times when, in fact, the creation of that framework means that you’ve got to ignore what the people in the local council want. If they say they want an at-large system, you’ve got to look very closely to see whether they want it because that’s what all their citizens are telling them, they want it because they think that’s the best way they can get re-elected, or they want it because the chamber of commerce, the local merchants and a few other notables in town think that’s a good way that they can keep their own people in power on the local council. Frankly, self-interest and the interest of the chamber of commerce are far too often the reasons for perpetuating these at-large systems which have the effect of underrepresenting people who already have difficulty, for a number of reasons, including this government, in making their voice felt in the democratic system in Ontario.

I would hope that not only will the government accept this amendment in order to make sure that people from each section of Thunder Bay can have their own representative, but that it will bring in similar amendments in order to ensure that there is a true ward system in every city or town of more than 20,000 or 25,000 across the province.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, may I, first of all, thank the member for Port Arthur for bringing forth the amendment. I think he has done it in the greatest of sincerity on behalf of his people. The only thing I regret, and I said this earlier, is the fact that this matter was not drawn to our attention before this. We had hoped if there was a problem, as you have outlined very eloquently on Friday, that this would have been sent either to the OMB or to our ministry by your people, by the council or by yourself and then maybe we could have been able to deal with it.

I have no objection whatsoever to a ward system in Thunder Bay, if that’s what Thunder Bay people want. But what I have objections to -- and for this reason I can not accept this amendment -- is the fact that I really don’t know whether this is applicable to the entire city, as you have it set out here. I haven’t had time to study it nor have the people in the area had time to understand.

Mr. Cassidy: They asked for it overwhelmingly in their briefs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think you have put this amendment to the people. Could the member reply?

Mr. Foulds: That is true. On the other hand, the city council has not put to the people the amendments that you are bringing forth.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Foulds: They have not put those to the people either.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right. The people put this plan to the council and it rejected it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, to go a bit further, what we are bringing forth is what we feel will be an interim solution to a degree, and we have said that the OMB must rule on it in 1975. I would hope in this election the people will have the right by referendum to vote as to how they want the ward systems, or at least they will get their views before the council and before the OMB when the hearing is held. I’ll be quite happy to receive any representations from the member for Port Arthur or from anybody he wishes to bring. I’d like to get their views. But I just can’t accept this amendment tonight.

I have to say again I appreciate your efforts. I just find it a last-minute issue which wouldn’t be appropriate for me to accept without knowing all the ramifications.

I can say to you that I do think there is merit in a ward system -- if you can accept me at my word, I am saying I think there is merit in a ward system. I don’t know whether the wards are proper. I think the OMB should decide whether there should be a ward system for Thunder Bay or whether the people want to vote at large and whether there should be residency clause or there shouldn’t be. And these things will be decided next year.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, just a word here. The minister has admitted he agrees with this general philosophy of a ward system; he said so. All that is being asked for here is not that this ward system be set out in complete detail but that the general principle of an equal number of wards for each of the former cities, plus the two townships, goes before the OMB.

At that point, the boundaries can be hammered out. The general ideas of population and balances and that sort of thing can be done. It just seems to me that makes common sense at this point, because there is time between now and Dec. 1 or Oct. 1 to get this thing finalized. Then the elections can be held on the new basis.

I don’t know why we have to delay for another period of time, for another two years, before this can be done. I don’t think the minister can give a valid reason why we must. He has admitted, he says, that if this had come sooner he might have had a different attitude. But the fact is that neither one of these points of view has really been put to the people of the city concerned. Yet it has been thoroughly discussed, as the clippings that my friend has in his possession demonstrated, so I would again agree with the minister that this matter be given a second look. It makes sense, as he has himself admitted, so why we can’t make the change now, rather than delay two years, is beyond my comprehension. I plead again with the minister to take a second look at this and perhaps review the whole process, even if it takes a couple of days when we must lay this aside and think about it a little bit more.

Mr. Cassidy: Excellent idea.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, there is one difference which the hon. member hasn’t explained as properly as maybe he might have. This is a request by the council, who have been elected, whether you like it or not. They have requested this, and we have gone along with their request. We haven’t had the opportunity to know whether the council agrees to this amendment or not, nor will we allow it to go forward, but we are dealing with their request.

I think it is impossible to go back on this particular solution at the present time. We do have enumerations to proceed with, we do have the Elections Act procedures to carry forth, and time has run out. I think if the hon. member would have talked to his colleagues -- it would have been much better if we had all gotten together on this a few months ago and come up with a solution. Maybe it would have ended up this way. But I say to you now that it has to go, as I see it, as the government is proposing, which is in sympathy with the elected people -- which you apparently don’t like, and maybe with good reason. But there is no other way that I see it at this time.

Mr. Young: But you don’t like it, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond briefly to the minister. First of all, we couldn’t have talked about this a few months ago because your appointment was relatively recent --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have been a parliamentary assistant for some while.

Mr. Foulds: Secondly, at no time had it been indicated to the people of the Lakehead, of Thunder Bay, that amendments to the City of the Lakehead Act were going forward at all. It wasn’t until you introduced the bill, when I saw the clauses, that there was any indication whatsoever that there was a chance to discuss this issue in a legislative forum. There was no indication by your ministry, by officials in Thunder Bay or by the city council that they were publicly requesting an extension of the present system. They may have written you, and I am sure they probably did, but there was no public knowledge of this.

I put it to you as strongly as I can, without getting unduly angry, and I am willing to stake a good deal of my political career on it, there is no doubt in my mind nor in the mind of most of the electorate of Thunder Bay that the city council members deliberately prolonged the process and came to you at the last moment for this very reason, so that there would not be time to institute the ward system in December.

I don’t know how you devise the mechanism, Mr. Minister, but I say to you if I might that somehow, when people present petitions to the city clerk of a city, they be notified, not only that the city clerk has received the petition but that the city is not going to act on their request and forward it to you or the OMB so that they can then take that action directly themselves.

This has not happened in Thunder Bay. In the case of the petition in 1971, the citizens’ association, as it was called at that time, was not notified that according to section 13, it could then proceed directly by presenting a petition to the OMB. In 1974, the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council was not notified that if it wished action on its petition, because the city was recommending an extension of Bill 118, the council did not understand that it then had to proceed.

I don’t know how you get that kind of expertise into the local level, but somehow there should be that kind of advice in the ministry -- and freely available in a negative sense, but in a positive way -- because community groups simply didn’t understand this. If they had understood it, I’m sure that in both cases they would have proceeded and you would have the information. I didn’t understand it myself, I must confess, until I started reading the Municipal Act fairly carefully and looking at the necessary and applicable clauses.

As I understand it, the amendments I have submitted would also be subject to an OMB hearing, so that objections in August could come at that time. I do not quite understand the minister’s reluctance at this time to proceed with these amendments. Even if he wanted to stand it over for a day and then come back, I would be quite happy with a fuller consideration and consultation with his officials; and if there were some difficulties he could outline, I think I could understand it better. But I can’t understand it now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, standing it over for a day would be no help whatsoever except to determine if you have a reasonable solution in regard to ward boundaries. What we’re concerned about is the Elections Act, as I mentioned to the member just shortly, whereby if we do not proceed until such time as we have an OMB hearing -- and I believe in his amendments he is saying --

Mr. Foulds: Aug. 1, I think.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- it will be heard within 30 days after -- we have to get the enumerations, we have to have a printing, we have to have a hearing. He may suggest the OMB hear it in 30 days, but maybe the OMB is not physically capable of hearing it in 30 days. I just don’t believe we are able to say that it will be heard in 30 days. Possibly there should have been a better system of communications. I’m not going to put the blame on anyone’s shoulders, the member’s or mine or the local elected people, but we did act on the request; it was a written request, and I held up the paper to the member so I think he understood I have a written request --

Mr. Foulds: In fact, I’m just going through the petition which the minister did not receive. There was no indication by the city clerk that the local people could proceed directly to the OMB if council did not agree with the petition.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. It’s unusual that this wouldn’t get into the local people’s hands by way of radio or news media of some sort, that they would understand --

Mr. Foulds: They probably had it at 2 o’clock in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t know. All I’m saying at this time, Mr. Chairman, is that I will work with the member, but I just can’t accept his amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Foulds’ motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

We’ll stack this with the previous ones.

Are there any further comments, questions or amendments on any other section of Bill 99?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there will not be any other bills in committee, so that if the votes are proceeded with, I presume we can then continue with the other work of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Right.

The committee divided on the question whether section 2, subsection 12, subclause 1 of Bill 89 shall stand as part of the bill, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 45 and the “nays” 23.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the section shall stand as part of the bill.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 12(3) of the Act as set out in section 2 of Bill 89, which was negatived on the same vote, reversed.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. That section shall remain as part of the bill.

Section 2 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Cassidy’s amendment to section 198(2) of the Act as set out in section 10 of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote as the first, reversed.

Section 10 agreed to.

The committee divided on the question whether section 11 of the bill dealing with section 199(3) of the Act shall stand as part of the bill, which was approved on the same vote as the first.

Section 11 agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is in a voting mood.

Mr. MacDonald: He is a bouncy fellow on occasion.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this bill be reported?

Bill 89 as amended reported.

Mr. Chairman: On Bill 99, Mr. Foulds made a rather lengthy motion dealing with wards and representations.

The committee divided on Mr. Foulds’ motion which was negatived on the same vote as the first vote in the previous Act.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost. Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 99 reported.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there were two amendments.

Mr. Chairman: The first one was not carried and thus the other was nullified.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: These fancy rules we have.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill without amendment and one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third readings upon motion:

Bill 99, An Act to amend the City of the Lakehead Act, 1968-1969.

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Give them hell, Ed.

Mr. Good: On consultation I find that the principle in the first section of this bill dealing with changes in the setup in several of the area governments was requested by the councils of these areas. So, consequently I presume the councils are acting with the best interests of the people of the area at heart.

We find that in the Rayside-Balfour area government the present setup is eight members, one of whom is on regional council and elected by the council. Under the new setup there will be six on the area government. One, elected by general vote, will serve on both regional and area government, and five will be elected to sit only on the area government.

Valley East also has a change in that previously there were six members on the area government, one on regional, among those six who would be elected by council. This has been changed to allow one of the six to be elected for regional and town councils on a general vote, and five elected for the town only.

In Walden there are similar changes from six to seven, and of the seven one will be elected for regional and town councils and six will be elected for town only.

My understanding is that these changes were approved by council. I presume they are the wishes of the people in the area.

On the second section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, it took me some time to ferret out the implications -- and it’s quite a subtle change -- in this amendment. Previously, the planning areas and subsidiary planning areas, together with their boards, were dissolved as of Dec. 31, 1972, and these municipalities were not considered to be municipalities after that date for any purposes under the Planning Act.

Now, if one reads the amended amendment, we find that the area government can no longer exercise any powers under the Planning Act, but they will remain a municipality under the Planning Act. One has to look through sections of the Planning Act to find out why that remains. If you look at clause (d) of subsection 2 of section 29, we find that municipalities are exempt from requiring consents under that section of the Planning Act which deals with the conveyance of land, and that this can be done if the land or any use of a right therein is being acquired or disposed of by a municipality.

So I presume then that the municipalities would still be able to, under this amendment, claim that exemption, which evidently they couldn’t the way the bill was originally written.

Further, on inquiry I find that the bill originally had left all the planning functions with the top level of government. It has always been that way. There have been no area planning boards, as in some of the other regional governments. This, I presume, was done because of the oversight in the first bill which excluded them completely from being exempt from the provisions of section 29 of the Planning Act.

We will support these amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on the principles involved in this bill. I think the main thrust of the bill was missed when the government didn’t see fit, when it was amending the Act, to include within the Act that we should opt for the ward system, since one of the basic, fundamental and strongest efforts in getting the democratic process to work is to have geographic representation in any of our democratically elected councils or governments.

This House runs on a ward system. We call them ridings or constituencies in this case, but no one in the province runs province-wide. The same thing, I know, should apply in any municipality that has considerable geography attached to it and a considerable number of people.

As a former councillor on an area council I am aware of the difficulties of ordinary people with small financial means to have themselves elected. When I look at the Sudbury regional bill, 1972, I see that five of the area municipalities elect their councillors by wards, and only two of the municipalities -- namely, Rayside-Balfour and Valley East -- elect their councillors at large. This imposes an extreme hardship on people wanting to serve on these area councils. There’s a financial burden on these people, and it eliminates a whole bunch of people from running for council, because they just can’t mount the necessary finances in order to do an across-the-area campaign, or to get their name known, or to bring their policy or platform to the electorate.

The town of Rayside-Balfour is a very large area. It encompasses several townships and it would cost a considerable amount of money in order for a person interested in serving that community to realize a success. The town of Valley East is similarly encumbered by geography. I think that there are large areas within Rayside-Balfour and Valley East that do not get proper representation because of the fact that they do not have councillors coming from that particular section of the area municipality.

In the case of Rayside-Balfour, which ended up with more members on their council than they should have had, or they were above the average of the other six municipalities, they are being reduced and I have to agree with that. Because, while it is a large geographic area, it doesn’t have a tremendous population. The eight members originally granted by the government were in order to settle a feud which was going on between the town of Chelmsford and the town of Azilda, one being in Rayside township and the other one being in Balfour township. Parochialism was rampant in 1972 when the original region of Sudbury bill was brought in. In order to ameliorate the argument, the government in its wisdom granted each of these municipalities four members on the area council. Now it has come to pass that they have seen the folly of their ways and they have reduced it to six.

In the case of Walden the number is being increased from six to seven. Walden has quite a large population and should have had the seven members right from the beginning.

I don’t understand how the technique is going to work whereby, in the case of Rayside-Balfour you would have five councillors running at large to sit on the area council and another person who would be running at large, and he would sit on both councils. I don’t know what kind of ballot the minister has in mind there. I think it is very confusing to decide how you are going to accomplish this.

As far as representation on the regional council is concerned, I can agree with running across the whole area municipality because the person who comes to the regional council, I think, should have the entire area as part of his concern. He shouldn’t have the parochialism of a ward politician, but should have the entire area. Then he and the mayor -- the mayor being elected at large -- and one senior councillor could go to the regional council and represent the entire area. But the other five members on the area council at Rayside-Balfour, I submit, should be elected by the ward basis. And I think the same principle should apply in the case of Valley East.

As far as section 3 is concerned, I consider this to be housekeeping only, as the planning boards have been dissolved as of 1972. So in fact this is already in place. As far as I understand it, it is just bringing the bill up to date with what has already transpired, and with that I can firmly- agree.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to enter this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I believe I don’t have much to add to the comments of the two members who have spoken on the bill. The member for Waterloo North was exactly right in his interpretation of the Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Always is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Everything he said was dead on --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s my boy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and therefore I have no comments on that.

The member for Sudbury was correct in his interpretation. The only thing I would like to say to him is that the ballot would indicate whether someone is running for regional and local or whether it is just local. I expect that would be the way we handle it at election time.

The general vote procedures for Rayside-Balfour and Valley East were, as I have said before, a resolution which came to us, not only from the local councils but also the regional council. We are trying to enact a bill which will, we hope, reflect the wishes of the people. If at another time this is not right, fair enough; we would be pleased to receive an amendment accordingly. But we believe this Act is entirely in agreement with the local people of Sudbury.

Those are all my comments.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with any other business I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

ROYAL ASSENT

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 89, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 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.

Bill 99, An Act to amend the City of the Lakehead Act, 1968-1969.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Before adjournment, Mr. Speaker, might I just inquire if, when we sit at 10 tomorrow morning, the question period will in fact go on as usual at 2 o’clock, and secondly, will the Minister of Agriculture and Food be doing his Bills 92 and 93 before the Oxford bill, or can we expect that the Oxford bill will be called at 10 tomorrow?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the question period will be at 2 in the afternoon and we will proceed with the Oxford bill at 10 o’clock in the morning.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:55 o’clock, p.m.