The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, a bill to establish the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario as a self-governing body composed of persons who act as insurance brokers in Ontario. The bill continues the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario as a body corporate and provides the corporation with certain powers in relation to the registration and discipline of insurance brokers.

It sets out procedures governing the manner in which the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario may exercise powers and establishes a procedure for dealing with complaints from the public concerning insurance brokers. The bill provides for public representation on the council and committees of the corporation and it makes it an offence for a person to act as an insurance broker unless that person is registered as an insurance broker.

This bill is the result of two years of continuous consultation with the insurance industry and consumer representatives. It represents a major step forward by this government in the area of self-regulation while ensuring that the people of Ontario are protected. It represents a model for self-regulating legislation in the 1980s.

This bill will change the status of the independent insurance agent, who is now actually an agent for the insurer, into a broker who acts on behalf of the public. He will be more of a consultant and less of a salesman. Up to this moment, independent insurance agents have attempted to serve two masters: the companies they represent and which sponsor their very livelihood and the public seeking the best possible bargain in its insurance needs. This bill will sever the formal economic ties to specific insurers and allow independent insurance agents to be free from a basic conflict of interest; that is, the need to direct business to the companies they represent in order to retain their sponsorship.

The Registered Insurance Brokers Act is a model for self-regulating legislation in that it represents a direct response to the desire for fulfilment by a group of energetic and enterprising Ontario business men and women. The philosophy behind the act has met with the approval of industry and consumer groups. The act contains appropriate regulations to enable the corporation to enforce a code of conduct, handle public complaints and discipline members who contravene its regulations.

The act will assist the industry to upgrade the professionalism of its members through entrance requirements and ongoing professional development programs. It will assist consumers by placing at their disposal an insurance consultant who can truly represent the consumer interest.

In summary, the Registered Insurance Brokers Act is unique in North America. Ontario is the first jurisdiction to take a licensed insurance group and deregulate it, placing the members under peer-group management.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Davis) but I also have a second question which I can put to the Minister of Community and Social Services in the hope that the Premier may arrive in the interim.

Is the minister aware of a situation with regard to vocational rehabilitation in his ministry? I can refer him to a Hamilton situation, although this may exist elsewhere. Does the minister know of the case of Mr. Ben DeVito, a 24-year-old who was a welder, was ill in hospital and needs rehabilitation in order to regain his skills? He has been on a waiting list now for some eight months and, apparently, it will be nine or 10 months before he can be seen. We are told by the office in Hamilton that 200 people are at present on the waiting list for vocational rehabilitation, that 10-month waiting periods are the rule, and that seven counsellors are handling about 50 cases each and are very much overwhelmed with the work.

Can the minister tell us why this long waiting list has been allowed to occur so that people are not even being assessed for vocational rehabilitation for nine- and 10-month periods? What is the minister proposing to do and can he do something for Mr. DeVito in particular?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say I am not personally familiar with Mr. DeVito’s case, but I will certainly check into it on the basis of the information the Leader of the Opposition has offered this morning.

I am aware there has been an increase in the time required to process applications for persons in need of vocational rehabilitation services. That has been the case since the rather dramatic increase in the number of applications from learning-disabled children for assistance in education, which was not, as the member is aware, originally part of this program. Because of the inordinate amount of staff time that has been consumed by those new applications as a result of the court decision a few years ago, the work load has quite dramatically increased.

However, the time the Leader of the Opposition quotes is an extraordinarily long period. I was aware there were waiting periods of a few months in some instances, but I have certainly never heard of a case where the waiting period was as long as 10 months. I will check with staff to see if that is a unique situation or whether the situation has become worse than I was aware of. I don’t believe that is a general situation.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister for the constructive tone of his answer and I appreciate that. Just to assist the minister, would he speak to a vocational rehabilitation supervisor in Hamilton by the name of Goldie Verhaeghe, who says the situation is so busy that people are now on a sort of first come, first served basis, and they cannot even priorize the need? They cannot make judgements between people’s needs to take the more urgent cases or anything of that kind. It is basically first come, first served. She says there are 200 people on the waiting list and, as I say, 10-month waiting periods. There has been some additional staff hired but not sufficient to dig into these waiting lists, just enough to keep their heads above water. If the minister could check with her and report to the House, I would be very grateful to him.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I certainly shall, Mr. Speaker.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members present a very distinguished group of visitors in our gallery. These gentlemen are all high government officials, representing different countries, who are at present students at the Center for International Affairs of Harvard University. Would you please welcome them?

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with regard to the meeting of first ministers next Monday.

I wonder if the minister knows what mechanism the Premier might have in mind for keeping the leaders of the two opposition parties informed of what transpires at Monday’s meeting, since the meeting itself, I take it, will be closed. Does the minister know whether the Premier has any plans at all for briefing the two opposition leaders on the positions taken by the various participants at Monday’s meeting, so that we can be reasonably informed as we participate in the select committee in an attempt to get, if possible, a tripartisan attitude developing in this House?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier intends to make a statement to all the members of this House upon his return from that meeting on Tuesday. At the opening of the House on Tuesday he will have a statement for all of us to inform us of his impressions and of the things that have occurred. I am sure he will have some mechanism in mind for talking to the other parties about other matters, or perhaps an extension of that report. I will be glad to pass the member’s question along to him. I cannot really tell the member anything more than that at the present time.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the minister’s position since he, too, will not be at the meeting on Monday and still does not know what mechanism will be used to brief the rest of us.

Would the minister also ask the Premier, when he is chatting with him, whether the Premier is aware of what mechanism will be involved to brief Mr. Ryan in Quebec, also an opposition leader and also a person who, I think we all agree, should be kept informed as these matters develop? Could the minister ask the Premier whether whatever mechanism is going to be used might also be used here, if appropriate?

In any event, would the minister please inform the Premier of our interest in knowing what happens at the meeting, if need be on an in-camera basis, so that we can intelligently prepare ourselves for the select committee, which we are taking as a very serious matter?

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I presume the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be involved as part of the formal delegation representing Ontario at the constitutional conferences that will be scheduled, apparently following the meeting of first ministers on June 9 -- I heard one report they may be scheduled as early as late July or August. Under those circumstances, would the minister not agree that we should resurrect the procedures that were used at the time when John Robarts was first minister in this province?

At that time there was another rather heavy series of constitutional meetings where the leaders of the opposition parties, the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and myself, I can recall, while we were not part of the delegation, were present at the conferences and certainly able to listen to the discussion and take part personally in some of the informal discussions. I thought at the time they were extremely useful and I felt it was a rather progressive approach by the then leader of the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, several levels of conferences and meetings will probably take place, although I think we must wait and see what happens on Monday and what the first ministers decide, because I think one of the important things they will be deciding is the process by which a number of these matters will be discussed. There will probably be working meetings of ministers of intergovernmental affairs and attorneys general from across the country.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t want to go to those.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You don’t want to go to those? They are the interesting meetings.

Those meetings, of course, will go on and basically they have usually been in-camera type meetings, working meetings to prepare the positions and the background work for the first ministers when they hold their meetings. The first ministers’ meetings will likely come some time after some of that work has occurred.

I am sure the Premier and the government will be looking at the kind of mechanism my friend suggested. I think the point he makes about someone from each of the other parties coming as official observers is very valid. I think he has made the position the same way they did in those talks that John Robarts held. They would be there without being part of the voting delegation or the official government group at the conference, because I do not think that is possible. I think it is entirely possible to be there in the observer basis.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The current news stories seem to indicate a little uncertainty as to whether any pattern might be worked out at the federal level for involvement of opposition leaders. Is the minister in a position to indicate whether Ontario is willing to establish or agree to multiparty representation in Ontario’s delegation irrespective of what happens in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can go beyond what I have said. I think the idea of observer status for the other parties at future first ministers’ conferences is a position that we would probably look favourably upon. I do not know what Ottawa is going to do. We want to reserve stating a very complete, definitive position, certainly until the meeting on Monday when the first ministers from all the provinces have a chance to discuss this.

I think my friend is aware that other people also wish to be part of the formal delegation. We have had requests from the native peoples in this country, we have had requests from women’s groups, we have had requests from the Association Canadienne-Française de l’Ontario and we have had requests from the municipalities -- all of them very worthy, but all of them wanting to be part of the official Ontario delegation. Of course, that just is not possible, although I must say there will be mechanisms worked out to be sure that the native peoples’ concerns and positions, particularly pertaining to those matters that are of vital interest to them, will be worked in.

CGE LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Would the minister tell the House what action he will be taking with regard to the 200 workers being laid off at the Canadian General Electric plant in Peterborough and if he has made any representations in terms of the obvious carving up of the cable business that is going on between CGE and Pirelli Cables Limited in Ontario and Canada at this point in time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) has his ministry working with CGE with regard to ensuring that as few people as possible suffer as a result of this rationalization. We are told -- and I know the member has a copy of the press release issued by CGE -- that they are making quite good efforts to see that the dislocation is kept to a minimum. They are hopeful that a great number of those affected by these layoffs can be absorbed in their other Peterborough operation.

10:20 a.m.

May I say that we have been dealing with this matter for quite some time. As the member knows, from the information provided to the union by the company, there are some matters related to markets in Quebec which it appears are largely causing this problem. I think it is something the federal government in particular is going to have to address at some time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that Pirelli is buying the construction business but not the plant in Peterborough and that Canadian General Electric is buying out the cable business? I’m sure we’re going to see a difficulty in maintaining the business for the remaining 180 employees in the Peterborough plant. This obvious rationalization of the business is going to be at the expense of workers. Some of the 200 going already have as much as 30 years’ seniority.

What specific representations is the minister making? It is not enough to have the Minister of Labour involved. The carving up of this business is going to give us real problems in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re concerned about it, because what lies behind the rationalization is the need for CGE to put some employment in Quebec in order to get piece of the very large business of Hydro-Quebec. That has caused them to have to find things to locate in Quebec. One of those things is the cable and wire portion of CGE’s current operation, which it has decided to rationalize and put in Quebec to some degree. Therefore, we are continuing to study exactly what rules have been put in place by Quebec which have caused the enforcement of this particular rationalization.

We will make very strong recommendations to the federal government with regard to dealing with this matter. Obviously it’s something that Ontario itself has no control over, but it is also an example of the fragmentation that goes on in this country and something that this government has been addressing for quite some time. I don’t think there is any more I can add to that particular matter. I would hope all members of the House would support us in pointing out the difficulties of this kind of fragmentation. It does cause unemployment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: The CGE purchase of the Pirelli operation is of the plant at Guelph, which has provisions, if necessary, for expansion. That certainly does not answer the question as to where they are going in Quebec. Is Ontario ready to intercede and oppose with the Foreign Investment Review Agency the present takeovers that are going on in the industry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The problem we face in terms of considering the FIRA application is this: if the FIRA application is turned down, that may result in the worst of all situations. I am not saying we’re recommending approval of the FIRA application; I just want to point out the considerations we have to go through.

If the FIRA application is turned down, one of the things we will have to consider is whether that will mean that CGE, as a result, will not be able to get any part of the Hydro-Quebec business. If that happens, the net effect of that turndown could be that CGE would have to close down part of its operation here, in any case, due to lack of business. It seems to me that would raise the question of whether it would be better to allow the rationalization to meet the fragmented rules we have to operate under, or turn down the application and force a less rational operation.

I must caution the member that this is a preliminary view of some of the considerations we must go through on perusing the FIRA application, but I think the member can see some of the ramifications of what we’re doing. The real core of this problem is not so much the rationalization itself but what has forced this rationalization, which appears to be the requirements of Hydro-Quebec. That’s the core of this problem.

MINING DEATHS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware that yesterday afternoon yet another miner was killed in the Creighton Mine, in Sudbury, at the bottom of number 11 shaft, where a mucking clam turned over on the miner? That makes the fourth death in the Creighton Mine this year and the fifth on Inco property.

Is the minister also aware that the time from a death to the inquest hearing is now running at 133 days, causing considerable aggravation in the Sudbury area? Can he give us some reason for this kind of delay?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker, and report back to the honourable member. I am not aware of the cause of the delay, but I will try to ascertain that information.

Mr. Mackenzie: While we are killing miners at a record rate in Sudbury, and while we wait 133 days for a mining inquest, the only answer the inquest committee of Local 6500 got in this past week was that it was prime vacation time for crown attorneys. Surely, rather than sitting on their collective fannies when we have the death rate we have in Sudbury, there should not be anywhere near a 133-day delay before an inquest is held into a miner’s death.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be very surprised if any of the delay was related in any way to the unavailability of crown attorney resources. I very much doubt that has anything to do with it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Given the fact that is the time frame of the delays we are having, and given the rapid increase in miners’ deaths, which is an issue of great concern not only of the miners but also in this House, is the minister not talking with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie)? Has there not been some communication between government ministries as to how they can get this problem solved and hold the inquest hearings quickly? It seems to me we should not have to wait until the umpteenth death. The minister should have been on it by now.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My information, and the Minister of Labour can speak more knowledgeably about this, is that the ministry has been involved in a very careful investigation in relation to this matter. The matter requires a very exhaustive investigation so that the inquest jury will have all the possible relevant facts.

POLICE SERVICES REPORT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a question was asked of the Premier yesterday in relation to the Pukacz report. Although the report was not tabled in the Legislature, I believe it was circulated widely. Certainly anyone who requested a copy of this internal document, which is a very extensive report, was provided with a copy of it. I do not know whether it should have been tabled automatically in the Legislature. I am not sure that it might have been of assistance to table it, but in any event it has been circulated widely.

So far as the recommendations are concerned, there is no question that the report makes a lot of very useful recommendations. The implementation of these recommendations will probably take some time, because the cost of the recommendations will be very considerable.

CIVIL SERVICE ABSENTEEISM

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet, if he will wander back to his seat -- if he can find it. I would like to ask the minister about absenteeism in the civil service arising out of remarks made in the public accounts committee on Thursday, March 27.

At that time Mr. Waldrum indicated there was a rather serious problem with the attendance of civil servants. In fact, he indicated that 75 to 80 per cent of the total cost, and the number of days, were in one- and two-day absences. What action has the chairman of management board taken to deal with this problem? Has he appointed what amounts to attendance officers in various ministries? Can he give us some figures as to the number of person-days lost in the short absences and what the cost to the government is?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, that is rather a long question. The matter is of concern to the government. I would like to take that question as notice and provide a detailed answer for the member on Monday, if he will agree.

I am sorry I was not in my seat, but the honourable member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) tomorrow will be celebrating 32 years since he was elected to this House. I thought I should mention it.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We would certainly like to join in congratulating Osie and wishing him many more long ball games.

Could the chairman of management board, in replying to my question, also inform the House whether the attendance is related to the merit increases that the civil servants might or might not get and whether the attendance is marked on their personnel records held in the various ministries?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

HYDRO LOAN TO ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I originally intended for the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), but I think it can appropriately go to the Treasurer. Could the minister explain why, when Eldorado Nuclear Limited decides it needs to raise $30 million on the private capital market, Ontario Hydro decides to join with Royal Trust, Victoria and Grey Trust and Montreal Trust to lend money to Eldorado? Specifically, $7 million was lent by Ontario Hydro in a recent transaction.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, but I will be glad to find out.

Ms. Gigantes: If the Treasurer is going to be speaking to the Minister of Energy about this, which probably would be the case, can he inquire why it is that we, under Ontario Hydro, can raise $7 million, which it in turn can lend to Eldorado Nuclear, yet we still cannot seem to find the money for Ontario Hydro or this government to lend to families and small businesses in Ontario to provide adequate insulation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think those two parts were at all related. Ontario Hydro is a crown corporation with a very specific mandate under the Power Corporation Act, which I think obviates those two.

The Minister of Energy in the federal government has the programs the member is referring to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro borrows with the credit of the province. It is hard to understand why the Treasurer would not be aware that they have made money available from their resources to lend to a federal crown corporation without the knowledge and the permission of the Treasurer. Can he explain how that could come about?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The investment programs of Hydro, as opposed to the borrowing programs of Hydro, are distinct. I think the investment programs of Hydro are subject to considerable scrutiny by my colleague the Minister of Energy. It is my responsibility as Treasurer to take to cabinet the recommendation as to whether to accept or reject requests of Ontario Hydro for borrowing. I do that. In fact, my staff has almost daily contact with Hydro on those kinds of needs to establish not only the overall credit line for a given year but also the places where that money should be borrowed and the timing of the borrowing.

Ms. Gigantes: The investment decisions of Ontario Hydro are vetted by the Minister of Energy, and clearly the mandate of Ontario Hydro is not to get into the private loan market to companies such as Eldorado. In view of this, could the minister explain why we could not extend the lending power of Ontario Hydro to private individuals in Ontario on an energy payback basis alone for insulation? It seems to me that is quite within the scope of this government to decide.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it is quite within the scope of the government to decide. I am just saying it is not within Ontario Hydro’s scope to decide. That is why I am saying they are totally different issues.

Without knowing the details of this matter -- and I have never tried to pretend I know when I do not know details -- it is not unusual, whether it is a coal company, an iron ore company, an electrical generating company or any other company that depends upon a source of raw material, to make some kind of investment in a source to guarantee a part of the output. I would not be at all surprised if that was the reason.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in the uranium field it was a government decision to put through the $339-million, interest-free loan to Denison and Preston on a $7-billion contract, guaranteeing $2.5 billion in profit. It was a government decision to do that under the responsibility the Treasurer has. Will the Treasurer tell the House what he knows about the fact that another $300-million, interest-free loan is going to be given as advance payment up-front money to Denison and Preston? Is that going to happen now? As Treasurer, should he know that or not?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I sense that my friend refers to this particular topic almost every time the word “Hydro” is mentioned.

Mr. Sargent: I was challenging the $7 billion going down the line under the table.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe the member had a select committee on that matter and had a great deal of time to look into the propriety --

Mr. Sargent: We are all opposed to it, but the Premier hurried it through by a certain deadline date. Why?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would not want the member outside with the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba).

Mr. Sargent: I do not mind as long as I am right. There is a lot of big money.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an insinuation there that I do not believe is correct.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your answer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I do not have an answer, and I do not think the member has a question.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do have a question.

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer does not choose to answer.

Mr. Sargent: That’s par for the course.

ALGONQUIN PARK MASTER PLAN REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked me yesterday when the Ontario Provincial Parks Council review of the Algonquin Provincial Park master plan would be available. It will be in his hands next Thursday, June 12.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether there will be public hearings or other such discussion with respect to any new policy the government is prepared to entertain as a result of that proposal? Can he further indicate what, if any, deadlines exist from his point of view to bring forward those new amendments or policy changes, such as they may be? What are the timetables and deadlines?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I expect that when the review and the responses are available next Thursday I will be making a statement about it very shortly thereafter.

FIRE INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General regarding the fire marshal’s office. In a recent article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record it was stated that the Ontario fire marshal’s office in Toronto has decided not to conduct an investigation into the cause of a fire there. The article goes on to say: “because the financial losses were not high enough. Because of a heavy case load the fire marshal’s office has decided to investigate only those fires with damages of over $500,000.”

I want to ask the Solicitor General if he can confirm whether this policy is in existence. Secondly, how long has it been in existence?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this policy has been discussed in the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The policy has been in existence for some time.

I cannot advise the honourable member precisely on the length of time. The policy applies unless there are exceptional circumstances. It is a policy we are not happy with, which is dictated by a simple lack of adequate resources in the fire marshal’s office.

Mr. Epp: Can the minister indicate what he means by saying “a simple lack of adequate resources in the fire marshal’s office”? Is he referring to the fact that they do not have enough able people there or to the fact that the government is not supplying enough financial support to the fire marshal’s office to adequately investigate the various fires?

Second, how can he justify a policy where these fires will not be investigated, even if there may be very good cause to have them investigated, at a $300,000 damage level or at some level below $500,000? What makes $500,000 such a magic figure?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The figure is not a magic one. There is a shortage of qualified inspectors in the fire marshal’s office. That is not to say all these fires are not investigated carefully by local fire departments and that the fire marshal’s office does not co-operate with local fire departments to the extent that it can with respect to fire investigations particularly when arson is suspected.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are not sufficient resources to invest for the representatives of the fire marshal’s office to investigate a great number of fires which occur in Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Attorney General can explain to the House why he is so ineffective in persuading management board and the rest of his cabinet colleagues to give him the resources he needs to provide enough fire inspectors.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the fire chiefs who met recently in Hamilton requested specifically that additional personnel be provided in the fire marshal’s office? Does the minister recall the conversation we had here in the House regarding the tremendous increase in arson as well as in fires of doubtful origin which may or may not be due to arson?

How can the minister be part of a government where he has to stand in this House and admit that he cannot get the personnel he needs for something as fundamental to the public safety as the fire marshal’s office when the same government can find money for Minaki Lodge and for sending auto racers to Le Mans? How can he remain part of a government that fails to protect the public with adequate people in the fire marshal’s office?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We have a very excellent fire marshal’s office which commands the respect of fire departments throughout the province. The fact that we do not have as many inspectors as we would like is obviously regrettable. It does not indicate a lack of commitment on the part of this government so far as the safety of the public is concerned.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain why the air ambulance service of his ministry has refused to pay the return flight to Thunder Bay for a 60-year-old woman, a constituent of mine, who had surgery in Toronto for carcinoma and was returned directly to hospital in Thunder Bay? Can I get that on the record?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to give me the name, I will look into it. There were more than 3,000 air transfers last year in the ambulance service, and I do not recall the details of every one of them, but I will look into that for the member.

Mr. Foulds: I would inform the minister I wrote him earlier this week or late last week on the matter. Will the minister personally intervene in this case and tell his bureaucrats in the air ambulance service branch that this independent lady should not be penalized because, instead of taking a stretcher and an ambulance from the Toronto hospital to Toronto International Airport, she preferred to take a taxi, a wheelchair and her husband, who had previous experience as an attendant, thus saving the taxpayers about $300?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As always, I will be glad to look at the case. I have not yet seen the honourable member’s letter. Let me say, though, that I think we have an excellent air ambulance service in this province which we are going to be expanding with the introduction of jet ambulances and helicopters in northern Ontario. I will look at that letter and see what, if anything, can be done.

Mr. Foulds: Will the minister not agree in the cases that members from northern Ontario have raised with him, that one of the essential differences between us, and one that needs to be rectified by his government, is the very narrow interpretation of medically essential that his ministry is enforcing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If anything, compared with those of most other jurisdictions, our definition is quite broad.

Mr. Foulds: The definition is quite broad, but the application is very narrow.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If one looked at the growth and volume of transfers in the air ambulance service, one would not arrive at that conclusion.

SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. As a result of policies brought in by the minister’s government, the school taxes in the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk have increased in some cases by up to $100. Does she intend to give any financial assistance to alleviate this very difficult responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers of Haldimand-Norfolk?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member obviously knows, additional funding was provided to the school boards of the province through the adjustment to the equalization factors this year.

There have been discussions with the Norfolk Board of Education -- I met with them just last week -- and they explained some of their difficulties. Their difficulties are primarily comparisons between the levy that is necessary within the Norfolk area and the one that is necessary within the Haldimand area as a result of the taxation situation, the assessment situation and the introduction of the factors.

We are exploring further information which the board has provided and we will be discussing with them later precisely what can be done to be of assistance to them.

Mr. G. I. Miller: In view of the fact that the city of Nanticoke is the only municipality in Ontario that has two school boards, the Norfolk Board of Education and the Haldimand Board of Education, would the minister consider blending in, maybe over a two- or three-year period, so that individual taxpayers are not being discriminated against?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Phasing in is an interesting concept. I would think the better solution might be the amalgamation of the two school boards to equalize the situation across the entire area of Nanticoke. I have made that suggestion, and I have to tell the honourable member that it rose somewhat like a cement cloud within the group I was addressing.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is answering the question in the way she has chosen, is the taking the lead in sorting out the problem that arose when the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs imposed a regional government on the area?

They constructed a rural city of Nanticoke, a very fine area of which I represent part, and my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk represents the rest. They have two school boards overlapping there. The minister’s colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), moved in with his section 86 magic and fooled around with the assessment. There are three ministries, none of which knows what the other one is doing, messing up the area in such a way that the local taxpayers are $300,000 behind. The least they can do is give them the money.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not sure the figure mentioned by the member for Brent-Oxford-Norfolk is precisely correct. That is one of the issues being re-examined at the present time.

I am very much aware of the difficulties that have been imposed by what I believe was probably a very thoughtful, useful and logical procedure developed several years ago.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, brother! Only a Tory could say that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In concept, it was correct. In application, sometimes the local situation may not lend itself entirely to the logic of the case.

I am also aware that the Minister of Revenue has been involved in certain uses of section 86 of his legislation. But section 86 was one portion of the activity; the equalization factors were the major portion of the activity and, as a result of that, there has been an improvement for almost all boards within Ontario.

The matter of the confusion that exists at the present time as a result of the fact that these are two abutting school boards -- they do not overlap; they abut one another --

Mr. Nixon: No, the municipalities overlap.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The municipalities may overlap, but the school boards do not overlap.

Mr. Nixon: Mrs. Pontius Pilate!

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That area of confrontation is somewhat difficult and is something that has to be resolved.

10:50 a.m.

EMCA EXAMS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister recognizes the public demand for maintaining ambulance care throughout the province, but is he aware that some experienced ambulance drivers are facing dismissal on August 1, 1980, even though they have proven skills and a certificate from an ambulance emergency care program at a community college? Is the minister aware that because of the failure of the ministry to require standardized community college programs which are co-ordinated with the emergency medical care assistant examination, there is a shocking failure rate of 48 per cent on this exam?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, some of the member’s facts -- I am trying to think of a parliamentary word for the word I was going to use -- are not correct.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Discombobulated.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you. Discombobulated. I am not sure how Hansard is going to spell that.

In 1975, the ministry brought in standards for the emergency medical care attendant program with the proviso that after 1977 all persons joining the program had to have this EMCA standard. In the two-year period between 1975 and 1977, the provision was that anybody hired had to get the EMCA standard by August 1, 1979.

By this time last year, there were a number of people who had been hired by ambulance services -- some of them run by the ministry, some run by private operators, some run by municipalities and some run by hospitals -- who had not yet achieved it. They were hired between 1975 and 1977 and had not yet achieved EMCA.

A number of the members of the House on all sides, as well as the liaison group of the ambulance attendants, asked for an extension so that with one more year these people could take the EMCA course and retain their jobs. That was done. I extended that regulation -- or rather cabinet did, on my recommendation -- to August 1, 1980.

At the present time there are still 23 persons working in ambulance services who were hired between 1975 and 1977 on the condition that they would take the course and get the EMCA standing, and who, it is my information, have not even taken the course.

We have been looking at this very closely in the last little while. We want to be as fair as possible, but I want it to be very clear that we are talking about a group of people who were hired on the understanding that they would take the course and that they would qualify. Yes, we are very concerned; we are very interested in maintaining a very high standard in our ambulance services.

Ms. Bryden: In the first place, even if they do take the course, which they pay for out of their own pockets, they find that in some community colleges the course does not seem to provide them with the training that is needed to pass this particular examination, because the courses are different. I understand that when the extension was given to August 1, 1980, the minister undertook to see whether standardized courses could be developed. That has not been done, which I think is a reason for extending the deadline for another year and perhaps giving some assistance to these very valuable ambulance employees who have experience and whom we need in this province badly. We are using a lot of volunteer ambulance drivers who are not trained at all. It seems a reason for extending the deadline for one more year.

Mr. Speaker: There is no question there at all; that is a statement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have to take issue with that statement by the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: The statement was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It was completely inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister has accused another member of making a misleading statement, and I ask you to force him to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: If that is what the minister said, will he please withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted to respond.

Mr. Speaker: To withdraw it?

Mr. Foulds: I insist you ask him to withdraw.

Mr. Sargent: Get the sword out!

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right; and now you are ready for Stratford.

Mr. Speaker, if I misinterpreted what I think the member was saying then I withdraw that. But to suggest that those people who work for the volunteer ambulance services in this province are unqualified is incorrect. To leave that on the record of the House would mislead the House.

Mr. Speaker: If the minister has suggested that the honourable member misled the House, he will withdraw that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure she would not intentionally do it. I am saying, to leave on the record the suggestion that people working for the volunteer ambulance services --

Mr. Speaker: Just withdraw the implication that the honourable member misled the House.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Done, Mr. Speaker. I think the point is made.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, there was not an implication; there was a direct statement and the direct use of the word “misleading.” If there is going to be a set of rules around this House, which I think there should be, for the use of unparliamentary language, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, it should be applied to all members of the House, including cabinet ministers.

Mr. Speaker: There is no question of that.

Mr. Foulds: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, will you take a look at the Instant Hansard and, if the minister has used the word “misleading,” demand that he withdraw the word without qualification?

Mr. Speaker: I took it the honourable member withdrew the implication.

Mr. Wildman: It was no implication. He said “misleading.”

Mr. Speaker: The minister did withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said I am sure the member would not intentionally mislead the House.

Mr. Speaker: The minister did withdraw the implication that she was --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If that is the implication that was taken, yes.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister’s ultimate objective to replace all of the private ambulance operators in the province with government employees?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Absolutely not.

MARIJUANA PENALTIES

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the provisions of the report of the Ontario Secondary School Headmasters Council, made in February 1980 and endorsed by the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Principals, related to the penalties for marijuana? If so, is she prepared to endorse this particular report in a communication to the federal Parliament, which will deal with this matter?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that question has not been posed by the headmasters. I am aware that their recommendation is that there not be decriminalization of possession for trafficking or major possession of marijuana. I am also aware of the fact that about seven years ago, as the representative of a rather large constituency from coast to coast in this country, I made the same recommendation to the Senate committee that was looking at this problem. I am not sure whether the headmasters want me to repeat that statement, but I do believe there should be a penalty for possession of large quantities or possession for trafficking of that drug. That is a strong personal opinion.

I believe, however, that the Criminal Code is probably inaccurate in its placing of that penalty at this point for simple possession, because I think that should be somewhere within scheduled drug legislation. The penalty could be imposed in the appropriate way if cannabis were transferred to that classification and the penalty based upon that classification.

Mr. Bradley: Outside of the representations through the report of the principals’ association, does the Ministry of Education intend to make representation to the federal Parliament before any particular legislation is passed in this regard?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The appropriate way to deal with that would be in ministry consultation with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and his staff, because the route through that mechanism would inform the federal government of the government’s position about it.

SCARBOROUGH EXPRESSWAY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intent of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to push ahead with the plans for the Scarborough transportation corridor, a euphemism, which his ministry seems to consider to be a transportation expressway, the major reasons for it being linkage to Highways 401 and 401? What action is he taking in that area?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would have to have more information on which corridor the honourable member is referring to before I could answer that question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is only one Scarborough transportation corridor that I know of. But I have a staff report here, dated April 15, 1980, to the Metro planning committee which states that there is an environmental assessment report under way. It says MTC proposes to initiate another series of public information centres upon the report’s completion some time in May 1980. What is the ministry up to in that area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The only thing I can think of is that this is the normal planning procedure for what we call the east Metro arterial road or expressway, or whatever you wish to call it, that will go north from Highway 401 just to the east of the Metro Zoo property in that area.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is the other one.

NORTH AMERICAN CAR SALES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism with regard to a report in Canadian Automotive Trade magazine of February 1980. It gives the total number of Canadian and US cars sold in Ontario as 19,871, and in Quebec as 23,389. Is the minister satisfied that a province as rich as Ontario and with two million more people should have such a low volume of car sales compared with those in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to answer that question.

It is true I was not aware that Quebec was buying more cars than we were in February. I urge Ontario consumers to close the gap in June and put us over the top so that we make sure that Ontario once again leads this country in the purchase of North American vehicles for 1980. This government is committed to that goal.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, does the minister see any relationship between the fact that his ads recently have come on TV and radio and the fact that our sales in Ontario have dropped?

NORTHERN ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL STUDY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Pope), who is in charge of government sunset, the member for Cochrane South. I would like the minister to report, if he could, on the efforts he is making and the progress he is making on the establishment of a northern Ontario food terminal. Before entering the cabinet, he had introduced a private member’s bill to that effect and campaigned very hard throughout northern Ontario on the need for a northern Ontario food terminal. What success has he had since he became a member of the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is probably inappropriate to be asked a question concerning the establishment of an additional government agency when I am in charge of deregulation. However, I would indicate that last year a committee composed of northern Ontario residents from Thunder Bay, Kenora, Englehart, Sudbury and the Timmins area was brought together by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle), the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). They formed a secretariat with respect to the development of the agricultural potential of northern Ontario.

They have been meeting over the past few months in various parts of northern Ontario and in Toronto and have been exploring various avenues in which government can be supportive of the development of a more viable agricultural industry in northern Ontario. They have hired a consultant to do the same kind of study that was done for Prince Edward county under the Agrimat program, which study indicated the need for food processing facilities and for a food marketing facility in eastern Ontario as well. The same kind of study is now being done in northern Ontario. The results of that study should be known very soon.

The committee is due to report back to the three ministers involved in this secretariat by the end of August and I assume at that time a report will be made to cabinet.

SCHOOL BOARD FUNDING

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Education relating somewhat to the question put by my colleagues from Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) et cetera. This relates to the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education.

Mr. Speaker: My judgement was correct; it would not have been a supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are both boards of education, Mr. Speaker.

The board indicates in a brief that the ministry has reduced its grants to that particular board and to other boards in the north from 60 per cent to 51 per cent and that this is causing hardship to the board and the taxpayers in the area. Is it not a fact that the ministry over the last two or three years has been gradually reducing the percentage paid to these school boards and it has gone down by almost 10 per cent in the last couple of years?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there has not been a major reduction particularly to school boards in the north, where the introduction of special weighting factors for schools with greater than normal or average percentages of declining enrolment has provided additional funding for those boards.

The provincial contribution to education for the year 1980-81 will be precisely at the level it was at in the year 1979-80, which was approximately 52 per cent of the total cost, or about $2.2 billion.

I have not had an opportunity to see the brief which the honourable member speaks of, but I shall make a point to do so, if it has arrived in my ministry, and try to determine the basis of the argument put by that board.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Libel and Slander Act.

Report adopted.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 118, An Act respecting the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

11:10 a.m.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to question 119 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill, and I would like to say at the outset that we will be supporting the bill. We understand there have been some requests for it to go to a standing committee, and we would support that particular request.

Speaking particularly to one item in the bill, which suggests that North York and Scarborough should get additional seats on regional council, it is our feeling there are some inequities in the distribution of seats at the moment. When we look at the various populations of the municipalities and the votes they have on regional council we find the city of Toronto at present has a mayor and 11 additional councillors on the regional council, representing 31 per cent of the total population.

East York has two representatives, including the mayor, and a population of 4.8 per cent of the total. Etobicoke has five representatives, including the mayor, and a population of 13.6 per cent of the total. North York has eight representatives, plus the mayor, and a population of 25.9 per cent. Scarborough has five, plus the mayor, and a population of 17.7 per cent. York has two representatives, plus the mayor, and a population of 6.5 per cent of the total.

These are 1976 population figures. Taking the 1979 population figures we find there has been a considerable increase, particularly for two of the municipalities. Those two municipalities are North York and Scarborough. In North York, there has been an increase from 25.9 per cent to 26.2 per cent. In Scarborough, there has been an increase from 17.7 per cent to 19.2 per cent. There’s no doubt that Scarborough has had the major increase.

For these two municipalities we find the government has suggested one additional person. The only other municipality that has had an increase in population over the three-year period is Etobicoke, from 13.6 per cent to 13.7 per cent, which is a much smaller increase than Scarborough and North York have experienced.

There’s no doubt that the new figures that have been suggested, the addition of two representatives to regional council -- one from Scarborough and one from North York -- represent an increase in population for these two municipalities. The total representatives on regional council will, therefore, be increased from 37 people, plus the chairman, to 39.

I understand the city of Toronto would like to make some representation, and there may be others, to a standing committee on the distribution of seats on regional council. I have no difficulty with that. I will support the suggestion that this bill go to the standing committee on general government.

There are a number of other factors that have to be considered in this bill, one of which we’ve already considered on a number of occasions. That is the additional benefits for members of Metropolitan Toronto council -- group life, accident, medical and hospital care insurance benefits.

As we stated last night, and have stated on other occasions, these benefits are already available to members of local councils but are not available to members of the upper tier councils, such as metropolitan councils and regional councils across the province, except where these have been adopted within the last few weeks.

We support the opportunity of these municipalities to give those benefits, particularly to the regional chairman, who would be excluded, and to those directly elected councillors such as the members for the regional municipality of Niagara.

There are some other interesting aspects of this bill. One has to do with a district heating concept, that is, the production of district heating and distribution systems. This has to do with greater conservation of energy, which all of us support. What they are suggesting here is that the district heating plants will be fuelled by solid and sewage wastes. Where these wastes can obviously be used to produce additional heat and energy, this should be supported. Metropolitan Toronto has asked for this legislation and should get the support of the Legislature.

The final aspect here is permission for Metropolitan Toronto to have a cardiopulmonary resuscitation program or a program of that nature. Until I read this act, I was not aware that they did not have the legislative authority to have a public education program for emergency cases. I understand that in Seattle, Washington, they have had such a program. People have signed up for it and been charged a fee. Two hundred thousand people in Seattle have taken advantage of it. It is quite obvious that an educational program of this nature would be to the benefit of everyone.

I hope that not only would this permission be given to the Metropolitan Toronto area but that it would also be extended to other regional areas and local areas across the province. The government should bring in general legislation so that other municipalities across the province could undertake such an educational program if they so desired.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could put a question to the member for Waterloo North for clarification.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): If the member for Waterloo North will accept the question, that is fine. It is a little unusual.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member has indicated he has had a request for this to go to the general government committee. I do not think anyone on this side has heard of that request. I was wondering if he might clarify who made that request and what its purpose is.

The Acting Speaker: The member can suit himself as to whether he wants to answer that question.

Mr. Epp: I have no difficulty in answering the question, Mr. Speaker. I understand the city of Toronto is desirous of having it go to the general government committee, or to a standing committee anyway. I think the parliamentary assistant would agree to that, since only yesterday evening we had no difficulty in referring the bill on Ottawa-Carleton to a committee when the city of Ottawa requested it. I have no difficulty with acceding to the request of the city of Toronto if it wants to go to a standing committee. I think the general government committee would be the logical one to which it should go.

The Acting Speaker: In any event, that is not a question we have to decide now.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the request that it go to standing committee, but I am pleased to support the bill at this time.

I have before me a memo dated June 3 from Mayor John Sewell to the city executive committee, referring to two specific areas of the bill of great concern to the city. They had already passed a motion on section 5 indicating their displeasure with that. In this memo they also asked for support from the executive committee on section 6 of the bill. If the Liberal Party is prepared to have this go to committee we will be willing to support that so the city of Toronto might have a chance to speak its piece and voice its concerns at the committee.

I presented to the table a couple of motions on those particular sections, presuming we would have to deal with it in committee of the whole, but I will now support the idea of it going to standing committee.

There are a couple of parts of this bill which are very good to see, and I will start off with the positive aspects, rather than with the criticisms of it.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: I welcome that attitude, very co-operative, very helpful.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I thought it would set a proper tone for the morning, it being Friday and all that.

I am very pleased to see section 4, on the processing of industrial and domestic wastes. I think this is long overdue and I am very pleased to see it incorporated. I am also very pleased to see section 9, a small section perhaps, but the idea of the public education program on emergency first aid is good and I think it is vital that appropriate powers be invested in metropolitan council.

Some of the other items are straight housekeeping and I really don’t wish to speak to those in connection with giving executive powers to various executives to act on behalf of council. However, there are three sections which I have grave concerns about and would like to speak to.

The first is section 1, which sets up the two extra members for the Metropolitan Toronto council. There are a couple of things which bother me about that, even though I am a borough politician and see the need for an expansion of the representation by Scarborough and by North York to reflect their population within Metropolitan Toronto.

I also recognize it is far more complex than just giving an extra seat to Scarborough and to North York. There is the whole matter of protecting the city and the city’s interests and the need to keep it a viable political entity in the Metropolitan Toronto scene. I am concerned that an ad hoc kind of addition of this sort is presented to the House for approval, it never having been sent to the city of Toronto for consideration or input, and not having been made a matter of a major public review in Metro Toronto.

There are some of us on this side of the House and on the other side also, I would hope, who would welcome a change in the representation on Metropolitan Toronto council, but we would certainly hope it would be part of a much larger package of reform with a much larger consideration of rep by pop and major considerations of the individual entities of the various jurisdictions within Metro Toronto. I am opposed to such a change being introduced in this way, that is to say, piecemeal, without being part of a larger review of the Metropolitan Toronto Act, as far as representation and having gone through what I would consider to be a proper process are concerned, both in terms of the public as well as the city of Toronto, which is obviously the group most affected.

Again, I am not speaking against more representation for the two boroughs -- there seems to be some logic in that -- but I do think it should have been handled differently. Sending the bill to standing committee will perhaps give those people who have concerns an opportunity to comment on it.

The other two areas in the bill which concern me and to which my motion would have been directed, are sections 5 and 6. They deal with the whole matter of jurisdiction over roads and transportation facilities within Metropolitan Toronto. Already there is conflict, it is fair to say, between the Metropolitan Toronto view of traffic and traffic control and that of the various boroughs and cities; specifically, I would say, between the city of Toronto, the borough of York and the borough of East York, which find themselves to be in the path of the major commuter lines into the city of Toronto.

We have seen a number of battles over the years on the proliferation of expressways and have heard concern about the extension of major arterial roads. Battles have been won by local jurisdictions to protect local communities from intrusion by commuter traffic over the past number of years, and I am worried that this kind of extension in the powers of Metropolitan Toronto would be a further infringement upon the rights of the city of Toronto and the boroughs of East York and York, and eventually on the borough of Scarborough.

If they were to look at what would happen if the Scarborough expressway were to be brought through my area and the people of the community of Scarborough West were to try to protect themselves from people skipping off this expressway and then darting through their streets by trying to control their own local roads, they would find through this particular subsection that the Metropolitan Toronto council would have the right to go to the Ontario Municipal Board and fight it. Therefore, they could hold up the ability of a community to save itself from being used as a major transportation route when that is not what that community was there for in the first place.

I have some real concerns about subsections 5(1) and 5(2). The only one I do not have any problem with is subsection 5(3), which is to say if we do not change that and take away the powers they presently have, the Metropolitan Toronto council would allow its executive to handle its particular powers when it is not sitting. I have no difficulty with that.

What I do have difficulty with is the idea that there would be an addition to our present legislation of not only Metropolitan Toronto having the ability to speak up when the city of Toronto or one of the boroughs was attempting to stop up one of their own roadways, but it would also have the ability to interfere when there was an attempt to alter or divert that roadway or change it to a one-way street. That is a very useful technique for a local municipality to use to stop traffic from coming off a major arterial road through a community. If they can get that one-way street to empty out into the arterial road and not allow people in off the arterial road they can cut traffic down to a large degree. I would hate to see those two powers taken away from the city of Toronto. In fact, even if this is just saying Metro has the ability to require notice of it, to start those kinds of fights at the OMB, would be a major mistake in my view.

Those are the two areas which give me the largest concern. I think we need to delete section 5 from this bill, except for subsection 3, and I think we need to delete section 6. Hopefully, through representation at our committee meetings we will come to that end.

That those sections are in the bill and here before us and have not already been taken out, speaks to me of the present bias of the government of Ontario towards the Metropolitan Toronto council, specifically in opposition to the city of Toronto council and its wishes. I find it offensive that just a couple of days ago we had Bill Pr14 before us, which contained some very credible initiatives taken by the city council of Toronto that should have been supported and were not. They were subverted by the government, although initially it appeared as if there would be some means of attaining a consensus.

We now have before us an obvious attempt to support wide control over the city of Toronto by Metro. I think that is what is primarily behind this particular motion. I think we are going back to Esther Shiner, controller for North York, and the whole Spadina Expressway thing when this is brought before us and we are being shown the prejudice of the provincial government in favour of that particular point of view.

I would say it is an obvious extension of its patronage consideration. That is to say the city of Toronto is no longer controlled by the Tory party of Ontario and its interests. It is now under the control of reform-minded individuals who are trying to take on some of their own powers and they are found to be some kind of a threat to the provincial government.

On the other hand, the powers that be in a couple of the other boroughs and at the city seem to be much more in line with the Big Blue Machine and seem to be much more an extension of that machine, so they are getting an undue and unfair amount of support in this House from the provincial government. I regret that and I oppose that. I do not believe that kind of extension of the patronage system should find its way into bills like this with unfair motions being brought forward. I trust the Liberals will join with us in standing committee to get these extricated and try to right the balance a bit in terms of the actions of the provincial government to date.

11:30 a.m.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in rising to speak to this bill I am speaking more in sorrow than in anger. I have watched the Metropolitan council for quite a time. As you know from your experience on that council, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have had many difficult times. I could not accept the fact, given by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), that all was rosy at Metropolitan Toronto. I would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), coming as he does from Scarborough, for taking the position he has with reference to this bill, because it is not an easy position for him initially.

Basically, I have to say I have felt in this House the same element of bias as far as the city of Toronto is concerned that one sees on occasion at the Metropolitan Toronto level. I have just been advised, for example, that we are about to see an amendment that will give Scarborough one more member on the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. The difficulty is that here the city of Toronto feels very disadvantaged by that situation. The position is not tolerable to the government; so, to rub salt into the wound, we add another member from Scarborough which has very heavily supported the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

I refer to that only because it is the same kind of principle I see in this bill. Obviously, I cannot question the right to increase the representation of Scarborough and North York because that is moving in the basis of rep by pop. However, I would like to point out that in Canada, and certainly in Ontario, we have recognized the needs of people. We know we do not have rep by pop here, and we accept the fact that it would not be appropriate to incorporate that principle for those areas which have a lesser population.

I just ask why on at least one occasion we could not take into consideration the minority needs of the city of Toronto. A year ago I had occasion to be at a luncheon table with the Premier and Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor. I asked the Premier if he could tell me the capital of Ontario. He looked a bit startled, but he did say the city of Toronto continued in that capacity. It is interesting, if that is so, that the city should not be seeing some recognition of its minority position. Why do I say a minority position?

I guess we all understand that philosophically Toronto is very different from the other boroughs and cities of the Metropolitan Toronto area. I am delighted the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is here because she has expressed her concern for the philosophical attitudes of North York, as enunciated by Mayor Lastman, with reference to the group-home situation.

But it is not only North York. We have to recognize the fact that the city is the only municipality in that group which has effectively dealt with the problem of group homes. This kind of philosophical difference does place her in a difficult position. It seems to me it would be advisable at least for government to take a look at the effect of this bill on that very delicate balance in Metro.

I thought the parliamentary assistant had been aware of the long-standing ambitions of Metropolitan Toronto to become the masters of the planning of downtown Toronto. Many attempts have been made. We know that Toronto probably would cease to exist if members from North York had their way totally over the road situation. We could just pave it over and forget about it.

These two provisions in this bill cause me deep concern. I recognize that the bill applies to all of the municipalities within Metro. But when one analyses the whole essence of the bill, it is pretty obvious that the inner city will be the one most readily affected by these clauses.

I think when one starts planning roads, traffic patterns and so on, one has really gone a long way in planning a city, at least in these modern times. So I am delighted to say that so far as I am concerned I personally shall support the motion to delete those two clauses of this bill.

We should learn something from history. Thinking back to the early days of Metro, I believe it is fair to say that at that time it was largely the city representatives who took the metropolitan point of view. I remember the famous debate on the water situation. It is true our mayor of the day was not very generous on that, but Controller Newman led the debate in saying we had to share the water we had with those parts of Metro that needed it. I suspect perhaps it was a contributing factor to the defeat of Controller Newman when she ran for mayor. But she was convinced, as I was, as Alderman Temple was, and as others were, that we had to make that kind of contribution to the metropolitan area. I sometimes wonder whether we were wrong. I still don’t think so, but I would love it if we had some reciprocity from the other boroughs in the metropolitan area, because I think it is fair to say we have not seen that kind of reciprocity in dealing with Toronto matters.

11:40 a.m.

I am delighted to have this bill go to committee where those who feel disadvantaged might at least have a voice. I trust that something may be done to cure some of the problems of this bill.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, there are some good things and some bad things in this bill, as the member who is piloting the legislation through the assembly knows. I am pleased to see an additional member from the borough of Scarborough added to the council. That reflects the growth in the population of Scarborough. Scarborough is the one remaining borough where there are still large areas available for expansion and the borough is expanding.

I think the parliamentary assistant is also aware that over the past number of years there have been considerable tensions between the Metro council with respect to its authority as to what it can do and what it wants to do and the wishes and needs of local areas. The member for St. George has touched on some of the concerns of the city of Toronto. I know some of my colleagues, particularly the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), will touch on that as well. These are very real concerns because often Metro council, particularly under the directorship of Paul Godfrey, determines that certain things are in the best interests of the people of the local area without even consulting those people.

One of the effects of the unfortunate section which is in this bill is that Sam Cass rules again. Elements in Metro council, particularly Sam Cass and the Esther Shiners and so on, will have a greater opportunity to pave everything in sight. If it moves, pave it; if it doesn’t move, pave it. It will create some difficult times for those of us who believe in a good living environment, but one that does not necessarily bring expressways with it.

There are quite a few of us in Scarborough who are very nervous about another expressway because the so-called transportation corridor is as yet unresolved.

Mr. Rotenberg: It has nothing to do with expressways.

Mr. Warner: That speaks volumes. It has nothing to do with the expressway. Allowing Metro to have greater control and authority over local roads is a step in the direction towards ensuring that an expressway will be built. The euphemism used right now is “the transportation corridor” along the south end of Scarborough.

We have known for many years that Mr. Cass and others have had it in their minds to eventually extend the Gardiner Expressway eastward to link up with Highway 401 out in the Pickering area. The government is not helping to stop that with the section that is in this bill. If it allows Metropolitan Toronto council to gain greater control over local roads, it will aid and abet the building of that expressway.

More than that, we are going through a current problem that affects not only my riding, but the riding of Scarborough North. Right now the road in question, Brimley Road, where some people wish to build a full interchange, a good $10 million worth of interchange with Highway 401, is a local road. As long as it remains a local road, the citizens have the opportunity to fight Scarborough council and win. They can get some thoughtful planning into that area and ensure they do not just put in another interchange, but have a more sensible approach to moving both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. I can guarantee that if we turn that road over to Metro the battle will be lost

Mr. Rotenberg: This bill has nothing to do with turning a road over to Metro.

Mr. Warner: I submit it does. It is one of the sections that bothers me greatly.

The member for Waterloo North, the Liberal critic, raised the business of representation by population, and that has been a concern. It was a concern when we dealt with the Ottawa-Carleton bill. It is a concern whenever we look at altering the structure of local government. We can argue figures as a lot of members do. There is a positive side in saying we should end up with a completely accurate representation by population. I understand that argument. I also know there are different interests, depending on where one lives. In the past, many aspirations of the city of Toronto have been thwarted because of the collective strength of the boroughs. That is nothing new. The member for Wilson Heights knows that well.

Mr. Rotenberg: I have been there.

Mr. Warner: That is right and he knows that on occasion, when the city of Toronto has been a leader in many areas of sensible planning, in order to try to stop irresponsible development, the boroughs gang up on the city. That has happened. How do we overcome it?

Mr. Rotenberg: Does the member not believe in democracy?

Mr. Warner: We obviously do not overcome it by simply allowing rep by pop. There have been suggestions in the past about loading the votes by allowing the city to have a vote worth more than one when their representatives cast their ballots on a certain item. There are quite a few different ways of dealing with it. I submit one of the reasons it is important for this bill to go out to committee is that we have to address as logically as we can the problem of how to balance off the needs of the core of Metro with the needs of the surrounding area without promoting more of the friction that exists between the boroughs and the city of Toronto. We have to do that in terms of not only representation on council but quite a few other things.

One of the complaints I have about this bill is that again we are into piecemeal legislation. I must admit I was looking forward to a complete package. I thought that this session we were going to see a complete package dealing with Metropolitan Toronto: some electoral reforms, some changes in how the Metro chairman is selected, in the reporting of election expenses, in the decision-making power and so on -- a whole package of reforms. We have seen nothing. Today we have a bill that deals with a few isolated items. The bill speaks very directly to the failure of this government.

There have been years of studies. The latest one, the Robarts report, for which the government spent $1 million, provided some pretty definitive answers on a lot of the problems, some of which are addressed in this bill. And the government did nothing, absolutely nothing.

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Ask the Scarborough council.

Mr. Warner: I have asked the Scarborough council. I know it debated the Robarts report and understood, appreciated and supported a lot of the recommendations in there. Like the other councils in Metro, it was looking forward to some changes and got none, except for a few little piecemeal items, some of which are not terribly helpful.

As the government is proposing greater powers for Metro council in this instance over roads, I would remind the parliamentary assistant of a survey -- and this government is great on surveys and public opinion polls -- that I ran in my area. The question was, “Do you like to have the decisions made locally or at Metro council?” There were 1,000 people who responded, 950 of whom said they preferred local decision-making. That is 95 per cent. I think the message is pretty clear that people like the decisions to be made locally.

The Metro council is too far removed from those people. It is another step removed. In some cases it exercises its power in a very strange way, mostly because there is a Metro chairman who is unaccountable. He is not elected. Who can get at him? He runs that show. The parliamentary assistant knows that and I know that. Nice Tory that he is, they all like him on that side of the House. He donates nicely to the party. He runs the show and he rounds up the votes on the issues.

Mr. Rotenberg: Do you want to stick to the bill?

Mr. Warner: That is part of the bill. Greater power to Metro council at the expense of the local authority is part of the bill. I do not like that because I happen to think that local municipalities can best reflect their own interests. On a lot of occasions they have to deal with local roads.

Under this bill, local councils will need approval from Metro council on one-way streets. In certain parts of Metro Toronto, communities are concerned about traffic through their neighbourhoods. They do a proper traffic study which could indicate that perhaps speed bumps should be put in or that certain streets should be designated as one way. Right now, it is a fairly easy process for them to be able to accomplish that but this bill is going to make it more complicated. That decision-making will be taken out of their hands and given to Metro council where it does not belong. Through it is the shadow of Sam Cass.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member does not believe in democracy.

Mr. Warner: Of course there is no use in responding to silly comments.

One of the things that intrigues me in here -- it is a good item, though I am a bit curious about part of it -- is the clause that says: “provide a public education program to give instruction in and disseminate information in respect of emergency first aid and basic life support techniques and charge a fee for the program provided.”

That appears to be inflexible. I would hope the government does not intend it to remain inflexible but perhaps will amend it slightly. I will tell the parliamentary assistant why. I recall that the Scarborough Board of Education put on an instructional program for the secretaries in the schools. The idea was to train the secretaries in emergency first aid and basic life support techniques so that in the unfortunate case there was an accident in the school or on the property the secretaries would be of some immediate assistance. No fee was charged for that. That was something the board felt was important to put on.

Mr. Rotenberg: It is permissive.

Mr. Warner: That is the parliamentary assistant’s reading of it. It does say “provide and charge a fee.” I am not convinced that is permissive language. I raise it because when we go to committee and then eventually to clause-by-clause discussing, perhaps the parliamentary assistant would be willing to take a look at that and to guarantee us some permissive language in there. Then if it is involving the staff and so on, they can put on programs without charging a fee. Those programs are very important. I know that for the schools in Scarborough it has proved to be very helpful to have the secretaries trained in emergency first aid.

I certainly appreciate the fact that the Metro corporation can be empowered to recover and sell products and commodities derived from sewage and waste. I assume that may be based on the positive experience by the city of Toronto with respect to its collecting of leaves in the fall and turning them into fertilizer. I assume that is a followup. It seems like a very useful thing to do.

I intend to support the bill and look forward to it going to the standing committee on general government. I understand that the parliamentary assistant sees no problem with that process. I look forward to the opportunity because I think there are some very strong arguments perhaps some changes to be made in committee, so that the local boroughs and the city can be guaranteed that they are not going to have some unwanted changes to their street system and that they are not going to see road widenings with no voice in the matter because dear Mr. Cass and Mr. Godfrey think it is a good idea to pave everything in sight.

That is a very real concern, and the government is not helping to remove it by the section in there. Probably on reflection, the minister will want to remove that section from the bill. We will understand that and we will support it. Having said that, I look forward to further discussions on this bill as it goes to committee.

Mr. McClellan: The members from the Metro area who have spoken on the issue have set out the concern fairly completely and there is not much point in elaborating at any length.

I would ask rhetorically how many times do we have to fight the baffle to try to protect the integrity of residential neighbourhood communities in the city of Toronto? Is it a perpetual process? Does the government figure that if it keeps whittling away and whittling away, that somehow those who represent the city of Toronto are some day going to accede to these requests?

In this instance, the government is trying to strip the city of Toronto of the authority to deal with the regulation of traffic in residential neighbourhoods. There are no two ways about it. The parliamentary assistant says that section 8, dealing with one-way streets, only applies when the street intersects a Metro road. But the parliamentary assistant knows that every single north-south street in my riding and in most of the ridings in west Toronto intersect a Metro road. He shakes his head. What is he shaking his head for? Doesn’t he know that Dundas is a Metro road?

The capacity of the city of Toronto to take decisions on the regulation of traffic would be taken away. The parliamentary assistant said that is not true when he interjected at the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). But the language of section 5 is very clear. It requires a joint decision of the city council and the Metro council before a road can be stopped, diverted, altered or turned into a one-way street.

With the history of Metro trying to expressway everything imaginable between Highway 401 and the Lakeshore, the only protection that an area municipality has had over the last 15 years has been power over the regulation of city streets and traffic patterns on city streets.

12 noon

There is not a single member in this House who represents a Toronto city riding in any party who does not understand what the game is in this bill. Suffice it to say the government is not going to get away with the game. I suppose it is a forlorn hope that the government will at some point stop playing the game and stop trying to promote the interests of the pro-automobile lobby, which has only one consequence for the older residential neighbourhoods in Metro Toronto, namely, to destroy them.

The message after so many years still does not seem to have got through the grey matter of the parliamentary assistant. Let me say it again. We are committed to preserving the integrity of our residential neighbourhoods in the city of Toronto and we are not going to allow either Metro council or its patrons here in the Ontario Legislature to get away with that.

I have every confidence these sections will be removed when we get to committee. It is important to have a deliberation in the standing committee so that the city of Toronto will have a fair opportunity to come forward and express its concerns. I would also ask, I suppose out of a sense of morbid curiosity, that some representatives from Metro appear at the committee. I would really be fascinated to listen to Mr. Cass give us again his explanation as to why he needs this power. Why does Mr. Cass need this power?

I am sure he will tell us. He is at least the kind of worthy opponent who always tells one exactly what his agenda is. He is always very clear and honest about what he wants to pave, what he wants to demolish and what havoc he wants to wreak. He always lays his cards right on the table. It would be a useful exercise for all of us to have him come down and lay these cards on the table. I have no doubt he would be quite happy to do that for the edification not only of the Toronto city members, but even perhaps for the edification of the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The legislation we are debating today really offends me and offends all the people who live south of Eglinton Avenue -- the major arterial road, the Metro road -- that happens to criss-cross my riding.

The incompetence of this government regarding the Spadina Expressway since 1971, and even earlier than 1971, has in effect brought us to the point where this kind of bill, which tramples all over local autonomy, is brought before us. Let me tell the member for Wilson Heights, who should understand and who should know better, he is closing his eyes and his ears to the kinds of problems we have in Metropolitan Toronto and is only concerning himself with the people of North York. I understand that. He represents that area.

In 1971, his government stopped the Spadina Expressway at Lawrence Avenue. After that, the government made the decision to extend it down to Eglinton Avenue. On some of the streets that run south of Eglinton, since the extension was finished the traffic has increased by over 100 per cent.

Mr. Rotenberg: Not on my street.

Mr. Grande: It has so. Take a look at the figures. I am talking about south of Eglinton. On most of those local streets the traffic has increased tremendously, to the point where people in those neighbourhoods are saying they definitely have to do something to relieve these traffic problems and the chaos. The municipality of the borough of York has put one-way streets into effect. Some streets are one way north and some streets are one way south. It is a little bit of a maze, so to speak. Only the people who live in the local area know how to get around. We do not have to accept the traffic of the commuters who come from north of Metropolitan Toronto on to our residential streets and who destroy that residential area.

What this bill says is that the borough of York can not make the decision to regulate the traffic in the borough of York. It says that if they want to regulate the traffic or make any changes whatsoever, they have to notify Metro council. Metro council will then take it to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB will make a decision favourable to Metro council because it says the law of the province is that way. It gives Metropolitan Toronto the overriding responsibility.

What is going to happen is that on all of those streets south of Eglinton Avenue the borough of York will have no control. Let us not forget that Bathurst Street, Oakwood Avenue, Caledonia Road and Steele Street are Metro roads. In effect, the borough of York would have no control whatsoever over the traffic flow into that heavily populated area.

The people in my riding live in probably one of the most densely populated areas in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Rotenberg: I am one of them.

Mr. Grande: The member is one of them, but he does not live in the most densely populated area. He should go down Atlas Avenue, Winona Drive and Winnett Avenue and find out how densely populated that area is.

This bill says the borough of York cannot regulate that traffic. The residents in the borough of York are going to be choking on the almighty car. This legislation offends me and offends the thousands of people who live in the riding of Oakwood. I am speaking particularly about the riding of Oakwood because it is an area which is very vulnerable, given the incorrect decision of the government to bring the Spadina Expressway south to Eglinton Avenue.

I cannot in good conscience allow this legislation to go through. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure those people in the area I represent are not going to feel choked with cars and that area is not going to be destroyed. The government should just take out some of the clauses in this act. If they want to serve the people of Metropolitan Toronto, they should allow the people in the local municipalities to make decisions regarding their traffic flow. They should not give the power to Metro council to make those decisions for them because the local people will then be powerless to direct the flow of traffic.

12:10 p.m.

I would urge the member for Wilson Heights and the government to remove some of the obnoxious clauses in this bill because these clauses are going to be destroying that area we are doing our best to preserve and to maintain as a residential area. As I have said before, it is one of the most heavily populated areas in Metropolitan Toronto. Because the borough of York is one of the oldest built-up areas in Metropolitan Toronto, those streets are so narrow that it is impossible for them to maintain the 100 per cent increase in vehicular traffic that has taken place since the expressway has come south to Eglinton. Not only that but if a local municipality cannot control the traffic that goes on those streets, we will find a 300 per cent increase in traffic. Very simply, people cannot live in that area.

I would ask the minister to do something about it -- to take this bill back, amend it and get rid of these obnoxious things. Otherwise, the minister will be responsible for literally choking the area I represent.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the member for Oakwood discuss the problems of the west end of this metropolitan area but the east end also shares those problems. In my riding there are many fairly narrow streets which are heavily congested with traffic. Parking is allowed on some of them on both sides of the street. It would be advisable that some of them be made one-way streets. But if this bill passes, the local areas will not be able to appeal to the local municipal council to effect the change and to solve those traffic problems.

I think the present government gives lip service to local autonomy but it appears that in its mind local autonomy applies only to regional governments. We have to look at where local autonomy should be applied and where the decision should be made. I certainly think in the case of traffic regulation on streets that are not metropolitan streets, local autonomy should be left in the hands of the local area municipality.

I would join with the other speakers in this debate who have urged that this amendment be dropped and that we do not take away from the area municipalities the right to alter or divert part of a highway without getting the consent of the Metropolitan Council. I hope we will see when the amendments come in that the minister has listened to our pleas and that he will return local autonomy to the local people in this matter.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate to draw attention to a couple of matters which I think are very important I am not going to get into the details of Metro representation or some of the other local issues that are raised by this bill. Those issues have been covered very well by other speakers, particularly by my colleague from Scarborough West.

There are two aspects of the bill that do have a more general impact on the approach of this government to municipal legislation and in a sense follow the same kind of spirit we saw from the government in the bills we discussed last night. It is important that the principles involved in this kind of legislation be addressed, as well as the very obvious and very necessary matter of the impact of the bill.

The first matter I would like to refer to is the public education program on emergency first aid. I want to reiterate my concern about the stupidity of a system that requires Metro Toronto to come to this Legislature before it is permitted to operate a public education program on first aid.

I know the parliamentary assistant, the member for Wilson Heights, was not here when we discussed the whole matter of the approach and relationship between this Legislature and municipal council during the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs but I want briefly to draw to his attention the section in that debate where I suggested the minister should look very seriously at a charter for municipalities.

In the last few weeks we have seen the government introduce, and we have now passed, a trespass bill that has the principle that if it does not say one can not, then one can. It seems to me that is the principle the government should be applying to municipalities so that if there is no prohibition against a municipality taking a certain action, then the municipality should be allowed to do it. At the present time, municipalities can do only those things this Legislature lets them do.

Mr. Rotenberg: Stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Isaacs: Very clearly the bill is dealing with a principle that this Legislature is going to tell Metro council what it can do and what it cannot do -- not what it must do, but what it can and cannot do. I suggest that is the wrong approach and that Metro council or any other municipal council should be able to operate an education program on anything it wishes to without having to come to this Legislature to seek an amendment to legislation.

The principle we operate under at the moment is wrong. We need to turn it around. We need to allow municipalities to do anything they wish unless there is good reason for this Legislature to put a restriction on or to put a boundary around the area of operation of municipalities.

I will not pursue that matter further, but I would urge the parliamentary assistant to review the discussion we had on that matter during the estimates debate just a couple of weeks ago. I believe it is a very important principle if one believes in the freedom of municipalities to operate in their own local area in this province.

The second matter I want to refer to is the road issue. That, too, has been discussed by a number of my colleagues. I completely support the attempt that will be made by this party, supported at least by the member for St. George, to drop those provisions of this amending bill. The government professes it is against more government and that it is against bureaucracy. That is what we hear from Conservative members in public during election campaigns. But the member for Wilson Heights knows very well how municipal government works.

This provision means that the staff of the local municipality will prepare a report with recommendations on whether a road should become one way or whether there should be speed bumps or whether there should be those zigzag speed restrictions. It will be dealt with by the local council, and the public will have an opportunity for input. Then the local council clerk will notify by registered mail the clerk of Metro council and the report will go to a Metro committee. It will be referred from that committee to Metro staff, who will go out and look at the situation. They will write another report that will go back to the committee and the committee will review it. The committee may meet with the same taxpayers and then the committee’s report will go on to Metro council. Then, finally, something may or may not be done.

Talk about bureaucracy; talk about more government; and talk about a ridiculous situation where this government is deliberating putting in place a bureaucratic system because some local municipalities have been able to do things which the government disagrees with. In order to turn that around, the government puts in place a bureaucracy which enables it to ensure its people on Metro council get their way over the wishes of the lower tier.

I suggest very strongly that is an absolutely absurd system and is totally inappropriate when it comes from a government that talks about less government and less bureaucracy. But time after time we see this kind of provision being put in place. Bureaucracy is built so that the government can use it to get its own way and pretend, as the member was doing earlier in his interjections, it is democracy.

12:20 p.m.

How can it be democracy when the views of the local elected council are being overridden by Metro council on this kind of issue? There should be one level of government responsible for making the decisions. It should be decided on the basis of which is the most appropriate level of government for that decision, and that should be it. When one government reviews decisions of another government, it starts getting into trouble, wasting time and costing the taxpayers a lot of money totally unnecessarily. It is this kind of provision and this kind of legislation that we can well do without. That concludes my comments.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, first, there is a suggestion this matter go to committee. When I responded to the member for Waterloo North before, I had no notice whatsoever that there was a request from the city of Toronto for this matter to go to committee. Since then, I have discovered there was correspondence back in February from the city clerk of Toronto that indicates that when the traffic matter comes up -- not the matter of representation on the council -- the city would like a committee hearing.

I have no objection to going to committee, but I would ask the members who may serve on that committee to be somewhat flexible. I would like to get this to committee and back from committee, in time to have these bills in whatever form they come back, enacted before we rise for the summer. I assume we will get co-operation on timing in order that we may have some agreement on what goes into the bill. I do thank the members opposite for their cooperation.

There was some suggestion that section 1 was somewhat of an ad hoc addition. The government’s white paper on the matter back in 1978 was circulated to all municipalities. The city of Toronto at that time said ideally there should be 25 members only on Metro council, but if there was going to be this amount they would have no objection to the two additional members. That was granted a year ago. The city of Toronto has a right to change its mind, but we have on record from it about a year ago it did not object to that.

On section 9 of the bill, I would point out to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that maybe it is the way the bill is drafted. Section 9 says that subsection 173(1) has added clause (e). The beginning of that subsection starts off, “The Metropolitan council may,” and then lists clauses (a) to (d), and this is (e). The preamble to this subsection uses the word “may,” so there is no question that matter is permissive. The reason this amendment is here is that Metro council without it would not have the power to charge for this. It is under the boards of health, under the local municipalities. There is no question it is a “may,” so it covers that program.

I would point out in passing to the member for St. George -- she mentioned the North York attitude on group homes -- since the matter has been to the Ontario Municipal Board and back, there has been a new initiative in the North York planning board which I am told now has the agreement of both Mayor Lastman and Controller Green. The initiative will solve about 98 per cent of the problem about which she and those of us on this side of the House are concerned. I cannot say definitively that the North York council will pass it, but my information -- and I do keep track of North York as one of the representatives -- is that it appears the problem will be solved. We will keep her informed and keep in touch with North York.

Basically, the main concern about this bill is sections 5 and 6 on traffic. Every time one mentions the word “traffic,” or the words “Metropolitan Toronto,” especially if one mentions those words together, there is a kneejerk reaction from the members opposite, a bit of paranoia and a bit of overreaction.

The member for Scarborough West -- and I welcome him as the critic for Metropolitan Toronto municipal affairs and thank him for his co-operation in matters of timing and so on -- said this would be biased towards Metro versus the city. I submit if we go his way it may be biased for an area municipality versus Metro.

Mrs. Campbell: It would be a nice change.

Mr. Rotenberg: Metro is a federation of municipalities. There seems to be a change over there in the New Democratic Party about the theory of regional government. If they believe in regional government and that people sit on regional government, there is some role for the regional government as well. If a majority of the regional government is in favour of certain actions, I think it is incumbent upon this province and this government at least to look at the requests of majorities of regional governments. It seems strange that some people are in favour of regional government when it does certain things and opposed to regional government when it does other things. I think the key to the whole thing is that we are not putting the Metropolitan corporation in control of local traffic. We are not giving any power to the Metropolitan corporation to pave, widen or do anything to a local street.

What we are saying in effect is on certain matters on local streets the Metropolitan corporation shall have to approve. If we stopped there, then I think the concerns particularly of the New Democratic Party and the member for St. George would be valid. We did not stop there. We said if there is dispute, then it will be arbitrated by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. McClellan: Like the Bathurst widening.

Mr. Rotenberg: And where did that end up? It didn’t happen.

Everybody thought the Ontario Municipal Board was great at one time when it was doing certain things the members opposite agreed with. The Ontario Municipal Board is a good institution. I have agreed with it sometimes and disagreed with it sometimes, as the members opposite have. But I think it does a good job and really does arbitrate.

I don’t want to get into all the details of this section. We will be getting into it in committee and we will hear the representations from the city and from Metro and from other area municipalities. I would point out to the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) that although there have been some rumblings from the members of the city of Toronto, we have heard nothing from the borough of York council about this section. I haven’t got the council minutes of Metro council to find out how it voted on this section, but I will.

Mr. Grande: Maybe you haven’t consulted them.

Mr. Rotenberg: Consultation, I would point out, is a two-way process. The mayor of Toronto has indicated to at least some members of this chamber that he is not in favour of this legislation. The bills are there and have been seen by all these municipalities. It is partly incumbent upon them to indicate to the government if they have objections to legislation.

We send out the legislation to everybody. I don’t think the members opposite would expect myself or the minister or staff to call up every municipality in Ontario when there is a bill going forward and say, “Hey, fellows, do you object to it?” We send them a letter and we ask for their reactions.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for standing committee on general government.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, moved second reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1977.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill today and speak to it. It proposes a significant number of procedural changes for the conduct of municipal elections that will simplify and clarify the whole process.

We were assisted in our review of the election procedures by the detailed and thoughtful recommendations of the clerks’ committee of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. Their recommendations have been endorsed by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Municipal Liaison Committee.

I would like to extend my personal thanks and the thanks of the government to that committee for its ongoing co-operation in preparing these amendments. I would particularly like to extend my thanks to Mr. John Nigh, the deputy clerk of the borough of Scarborough, who is chairman of their committee and who has done great service to municipalities of this province in helping to prepare this legislation.

Bill 71 was circulated to all municipalities. The clerks’ committee gave prompt attention to the bill and the response was generally favourable. However, as a result of this further input from the committee, I must confess we made one slight mistake. I am going to put a motion to amend section 18 because we left a few words off at the end. I believe the critics have a copy of that amendment. This is really a minor amendment to clarify it and does not change the intent of the original amendment.

We are confident that the complete range of amendments in this bill will meet the concerns of municipalities as they look forward to running their elections very smoothly this coming fall. I commend the bill to the House.

12:30 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself and my party with the comments made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Wilson Heights, with respect to the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. As we know, there are a number of municipal associations in the province. They give excellent service to the municipalities and to the province with their recommendations and assistance in drawing up legislation in this province. In this case, the parliamentary assistant particularly singled out the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, which has done a very admirable and a very extensive job in reforming some of the legislation with respect to the Municipal Elections Act.

There are a number of matters in this bill that need to be addressed and some of them are relatively technical; they are of a housekeeping nature and yet they are fairly important. We notice that the minister responsible for administering this act will be the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells). Previously, it was the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, portfolios occupied by one person.

There are a number of other things that have come up; for instance, the period for nominations is shortened from the nomination day plus five days to two days plus nomination day. I think that is an important amendment.

The onus has been removed from the deputy returning officer to identify disqualified persons and thereby prevent those persons from voting. I think this was an unfair onus to be put on the deputy returning officer, because he or she often was not in a position to say so and so should vote or should not vote. If they are on the list then they should be permitted to vote. I would think in many cases the deputy returning officer certainly felt that the legislative authority which he had to disqualify persons should not be placed on him.

There are some matters in here which are going to be amended, which in turn will help save some of the taxpayers’ money in municipalities. We certainly endorse that principle. Where notices had to be delivered in person, they can now be mailed out, despite the increasing costs of postal service in the province.

We note that the municipalities were required from time to time to send notice to people whose names had been deleted from the preliminary list of electors and the act requires that where a deletion has been made, subsequent notice must be served personally or delivered to the person deleted. This was very difficult in some circumstances, particularly where the person was deceased and it was very difficult for municipalities to enforce that particular requirement in the act. I think this amendment is obviously a step forward for the ministry.

I want to address myself to the matter of shortening the nomination period from five to two days plus nomination day. This was changed a few years ago. I thought back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when you had a nomination meeting where people were nominated by someone and made a speech and so forth; some of the citizens came out to hear those speeches. I often thought that was a fairly good tradition we had in the province, although it did present some kind of inconvenience to persons who wanted to run for municipal elected office. The act was changed and a fairly long period for nomination was legislated; as I mentioned, five days.

This meant that nominations could start Monday and you might have a few dribble into city hall and everybody would watch the newspapers to see who was nominated. On Tuesday, there might be a few more and a few on Wednesday and Thursday, but the great influx of nominations would usually come late Thursday or Friday, or even Monday. With this legislation, the people can now be nominated on the Thursday or Friday or on nomination day, the Monday.

The other thing which I think is very important is that people do not have to be there to be nominated. They can have an agent nominate them on their behalf, providing they have consented and they have the necessary signatures for that nomination.

We note the court of revision has been changed. The length has stayed the same but the actual relationship to the nomination period has been changed.

We will be bringing forth two amendments to this proposed bill. One will be a change in section 12 of the act as it was adopted in 1977. We note there are three qualifications articulated in this particular act. One is that the person be a resident in such a municipality; secondly, that the person be a Canadian citizen or other British subject, and thirdly, that the person has attained the age of 18 years on or before polling day.

I think these conditions are generally acceptable with the exception of the second one. It is my feeling and it is the feeling of my party that the section pertaining to British subjects should be deleted. We will speak at greater length to this particular amendment when it comes before the committee of the whole, but we feel this particular provision is somewhat archaic and should be modernized with legislative changes that have been enacted in other jurisdictions in the country.

The other amendment that we will be introducing is the three-year term. I have brought in a private member’s bill on this and I know the member for Scarborough West recently brought in a private member’s bill on this particular item. It is our feeling that there should be a three-year term for municipally elected people in this province. The government has put its head in the sand day after day and has not tried to bring in legislation in keeping with what we feel municipal councillors and the public would generally support.

I do not deny the fact that there are some editorial writers in this province who are opposed to the three-year term, and we respect their opinion on this matter. Our own opinion, however, is that we should permit municipalities to have a three-year term and we will introduce an amendment to make that change in this act.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by telling the parliamentary assistant that I think this is a good bill. In fact, I think it is an excellent bill that makes some changes that are going to be well worth having, not only for the administrators of the municipal election system but also for the public.

I say that because the parliamentary assistant lamented yesterday that we never have good things to say about his legislation. I sincerely mean that and I believe the proposals contained in this bill are worth while. After the compliments that my colleague from Scarborough West started out making on the Metro bill earlier this morning, I am not sure the parliamentary assistant wants compliments any more, but he has them from me on this bill.

There are a number of principles in this bill I want to address. I am not going to go through every detail in the bill, because a lot of the matters are remarkably small. They are administrative matters, cleaning up little things that were overlooked in the past.

Also I learned, through attempting to take this caucus through the bill step by step, that can be a very long-winded process. It is more appropriate to concentrate on what I perceive to be the highlights of the bill.

12:40 p.m.

I would like to comment briefly about the process that led to the bill being here and to add to the comments of those who have commended AMCTO for its initiative in bringing forward these recommendations.

When one is dealing with the matter of elections and election process, it seems to me it would have been appropriate to have allowed a longer public discussion period on the principle of making changes to the Municipal Elections Act. There may well be changes that others wish to see made that municipal clerks and treasurers would not be aware of because they are dealing with the administrative side of things and are not necessarily in contact with the electorate who have problems at the ballot box. Some circulation of the bill to defeated candidates and to the general public, or at least a notification that the Municipal Elections Act was to be opened up for review, would have been valuable, so that input could have come to us.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member cannot resist making criticisms.

Mr. Isaacs: There will be some more. If the parliamentary assistant would like me to go through every section and heap praise upon it, so be it, but we will be here forever. It seems to me that when one has something to say on a section one says it, and when one says nothing on a particular provision of the bill then the parliamentary assistant can certainly take it we fully support that provision. Enough said on that.

There is a recommendation for change in this bill to the period of qualification for electors in a municipal election. Indeed, the period of qualification is being shifted back two days for administrative convenience. It seems to me there should be something better than administrative convenience to decide how to qualify electors for a municipal election.

For example, if a person moves into a municipality two weeks before election day, he or she has clearly moved into that municipality for the purpose of taking up permanent residence. Some consideration should be given to finding mechanisms to allow that person to vote. I recognize it would be inappropriate for people who moved in on election day itself to be extended the franchise, but somehow there needs to be discussion of the period necessary for an elector moving into a municipality to get to understand what is going on in that municipality. It is a minor irritant to me that we are moving the period back two days simply for administrative convenience, without any discussion as to whether a person who has moved in between 19 and 17 days before election day should be denied the franchise in the upcoming municipal election.

There is provision in this bill for reduction of the nomination period and also for allowing candidates to be nominated by agents. We welcome that provision. It is a step towards making municipal elections a little more responsible, a little more organized, a little more structured, rather than having a long period for nominations and individuals walking in and out, deciding whether they wish to be nominated for the upcoming election.

In particular, the provision to allow candidates to be nominated by an agent is something we see as being very beneficial to candidates who are required to work, because the municipal council is only a part-time activity. They found it very inconvenient in the past to have to take time off work in order to appear in person before the returning officer, normally the clerk of the municipality.

There is provision in this bill to change the procedures that can be followed after a supplementary nomination period. Candidates nominated during the regular nomination period already have the right to withdraw their nomination. Under the provisions of this bill, candidates nominated during the supplementary nomination period will also have the right to withdraw their nomination.

That provision, even the existing provision, has given cause for elector concern in a number of municipalities where candidates give the appearance of playing a game. An individual candidate will be nominated in more than one ward, or for more than one position, and following the close of nominations all the candidates will sit down in some smoke-filled back room and jockey among themselves to decide who is going to be acclaimed in which position, and who is going to have to run an election and for which position. I don’t think that kind of thing helps the electorate to have faith in the municipal elections process.

My general feeling is that we should be moving in the other direction. Instead of extending the ability of candidates to withdraw their nominations, we should be indicating that candidates should be allowed to be nominated for only one position. If we set that down and said it is a responsible election and a candidate has to decide what it is he’s running for and has to put his name in as a candidate for that position, this kind of provision may make some sense.

But at present, we have people in some municipalities -- and I’ve seen it happen even in my own -- being nominated in two or three or four wards, or occasionally being nominated for council and for deputy reeve and for reeve. Then this kind of huddling goes on after the close of nominations, and the use of this provision to do some internal jockeying, over which the electorate has no control. In these circumstances I’m not sure we’re helping the credibility. I hope next time we amend the Municipal Elections Act the parliamentary assistant and his staff, and the minister too, will take that comment into account.

I have very grave concern about the provision that permits a new election if a candidate for head of council dies, but not during the campaign period, but it does not permit a new election if any other candidate dies during the election period. Obviously, the death of a candidate during the election period is not going to be very common, and I can understand that there would be problems where there are, say, eight councillors being elected at large and there may be 20 or 25 candidates for those eight positions. If one of the candidates dies, to nullify that election and have to start all over again could cause a problem.

There are also situations where there are only three candidates running for two seats in a ward. There are situations where two or three candidates are running for deputy reeve or for regional councillor. It is of concern to me that we are saying the head of council is somehow very important and we will allow the democratic process to be carried to its ultimate and nullify the election if one of the candidates dies during the campaign for head of council, but not allow that same provision to happen in the other positions, where only one or two seats in a ward are being filled, or the deputy reeve’s position et cetera.

Mr. Rotenberg: That’s the way it is now. We are changing it for head of council.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, the provision is getting better. I would have preferred to see it go much further.

We have sat down with legal people and looked at this and unfortunately it is difficult to define exactly what we’re getting at. We’re prepared to agree that if there is an election at large, if a municipality is trying to fill more than two seats on a single ballot, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to call a new election because of the death of one of a multitude of candidates.

But where there are only one or two positions being filled on a specific ballot, I would hope the government would give consideration to working out some wording that would permit new elections to be called if a candidate died in that situation as well.

In general the idea of appointments to fill vacancies, the idea of not allowing the complete democratic process in municipal elections, gives us some problems. Both on that section that I’ve just referred to and on the section that allows council to appoint to vacancies where there are insufficient candidates, even after the supplementary nomination period, we’re not really sure this is the direction we should be heading.

12:50 p.m.

On that second section, I referred to the appointment by council to fill vacancies where there are simply insufficient candidates. Where there is a ward system and there are perhaps eight wards and one councillor from each ward, if there is nobody interested in running in one ward then it is clearly better to have a representative appointed by council than to have no representative at all for the full two years.

Where there is an eight-member council elected at large, and there are only seven candidates for the eight seats, it may be better to proceed with a vacant seat than to allow council to appoint one person to fill that vacant seat who is representing no one in particular, and accountable to no one in particular because the election would have been at large. There is a problem with how you deal with those kinds of situations, and I am just not sure that the approach the bill is taking is the best in the long run. But we are prepared to go along with it at this time because it is, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, a step in the right direction.

We support and warmly welcome the provision in this bill that allows an indication on the ballot of the upper tier position that will automatically be filled by the successful candidate in a direct election to lower tier. That is something we believe is overdue, something that is going to help electors realize the person they are electing is part of a regional government process as well as being part of a local government process. I hope it will help to ensure that municipal candidates run on their record on the regional council and occasionally on county council, as well as on their records of what they have done for the local municipality.

I hope if there are other things that are suggested for dealing with that particular problem the government will look favourably upon them. I hope, too, the government will be prepared, at some time, to try to ensure that as many upper tier positions as possible are filled by direct election, even though that direct election may also include the election to the lower tier. The concept of the local council deciding after the election who should be the regional or county representative is one that gives me some difficulty.

We are prepared to support, with a little reluctance, the provision in this bill that enables the returning officer, the municipal clerk, to send only one notice of the polling place, notice of inclusion on the voters’ list, to each residence rather than having to send a separate notice to each individual voter. The concept makes sense. It will save substantially in bureaucracy. It will save substantially in postage. It is for those reasons that we are supporting it.

However, a problem arises when there are unrelated people living in a household, particularly when the household is occupied by three or four people of the same sex living within that home and the communication between them may be relatively infrequent. For one card or for one letter to arrive addressed to the household simply may mean that those people are not being informed clearly of the polling place, of the fact they are on the voters’ list, and of their right to vote in the municipal election. There is no easy answer to that one. I recognize that. I hope it might be possible to deal with it by suggesting that the notice of the polling place carry the legend, “Please ensure that all residents of the household who are entitled to vote see this notice.”

Mr. Rotenberg: It is permissive. They do not have to do it.

Mr. Isaacs: I recognize it is permissive but I am sure every municipality that is allowed to take advantage of it will do so. I think it would be wasteful not to take advantage of this section, but I think they should be required to clearly indicate it is an important notice and it is necessary that the individual electors see they have a right to vote and see that the notice has arrived.

There are two further items I want to refer to. One is the requirement that an applicant for a recount notify all the other candidates. It is a very minor point and it is in a sense very legalistic, but it seems to me, given that candidates in municipal elections probably don’t have lawyers on their campaign teams, they probably don’t want to get involved in legal things.

It should be possible, however, for a candidate who desires a recount to file his statement with the judge and to pay his $100 and allow the bureaucracy to look after the notification. After all, the $100 has to be for something. I am aware that the parliamentary assistant is going to respond that this is the legal way to do things; that is how you do it when you are dealing with tribunals and courts. So be it. But I think a little bit of humanity, a little bit of common sense might sometimes be applied instead of the strict legal interpretation of how it should be done. I hope there will be some consideration of that aspect when we go through this bill clause by clause.

Finally, the matter of the status of candidates in a recount is understandable, though a problem could arise if on a recount, there was a switch from one candidate to another, then following the appeal there was a switch back again. It could become very confusing for the electors in the municipality as to who was their elected official, their councillor or alderman. First, one would be on council, then after a month or so there would be a switch around, and then after another couple of months when the appeal was disposed of there may be a switch back. That seems to offend common sense somehow.

I don’t know whether there is another answer except to leave the matter in the hands of the judge and to leave with the judge the ability to order which of the candidates involved is the one entitled to sit on the council, at least during the period between the recount and the appeal. The period between the election and the recount is usually a bit shorter and perhaps it would not be so confusing, but once the recount has taken place it seems to me the person conducting the recount should have the authority to decide which of the two candidates should sit on council until after the appeal. This would be preferable to having the potential for a switch around of candidates on council on two separate occasions. That won’t solve the problem, but it might clarify it.

I would conclude by reiterating that I think it is, in general, a good bill. We will be supporting it and we congratulate AMCTO for its work. I hope if there is public input arising from this November’s municipal election process then there will be further review by the ministry and by this House of the changes the public and defeated as well as elected candidates would like to see to make the Municipal Elections Act work even more smoothly than it does at the moment; and things do work quite well at the moment

The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacBeth): Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? Has the parliamentary assistant a long reply?

Mr. Rotenberg: No, Mr. Speaker, I think I shall try to finish this before one o’clock.

I just want to thank the opposition for their support and comment on a couple of points the member for Wentworth made. Frankly, there is no right answer to the problem created when a candidate dies after nomination day. At present, even for the election of the head of a municipality, if a candidate dies the election proceeds unless, in an election for any municipal office, the number of candidates left would create an acclamation. Then, there must be a new election. If there are three running for two seats and one dies, there must be a new election.

We feel if the present system is wrong, or what we have proposed is wrong, it would depend on the circumstances, but the head of council being different we think we should revert to the old system for the election of the head of council only. As I say, either way there is no right answer.

As far as insufficient candidates for office are concerned, I would suggest that after there have been nominations and supplementary nominations and no one turns up, the vacancy should be filled.

With reference to the applicant for a recount notifying the other party, at the present time an applicant for recount goes to a judge and, in effect, it is like an ex parte hearing; the judge will order a recount without even the other people knowing about it. With this amendment the other candidates will know about the hearing and the application for recount and may object to the application for recount. That is why the other candidates should be notified. At present they are not notified at all.

With those brief remarks I would ask for second reading of this bill and ask that it go to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.