32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

HOME HEATING COSTS


The House resumed at 8:01 p.m.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, moved second reading of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short and simple bill. The purpose of the bill is to provide for a uniform three-year term of office for municipal councils and elected local boards across the province, beginning with the municipal elections that will take place in November 1982 and every third year thereafter.

Since 1972 the Municipal Elections Act has provided for a uniform two-year term of office for all elected municipal representatives. This bill has the support of the Ontario School Trustees' Council, the Ontario Municipal Electric Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. In fact, at the inaugural meeting of the new Association of Municipalities of Ontario last August there was overwhelming, in fact almost unanimous, support by the delegates for a resolution in favour of the three-year term.

The government's reasoning for this has been set out in some detail by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) both at the AMO convention and in a number of other speeches. In brief, our view is that the three-year term will facilitate more long-term planning by municipalities. This change also reflects the confidence that we on this side of the House and in this government have in our municipal politicians and in the municipal electors.

There is a common assertion that the municipal politicians and not the electors will be the main beneficiaries of this change. This, in my view, is not correct. We expect municipalities to act more responsibly and to depend less on the province for guidance in exchange for a longer municipal term of office.

The three-year term will provide municipalities and their councils with a greater opportunity to plan for the future, but it does not guarantee that they will do so. But we believe that municipal politicians will fulfil their part of the bargain with the province and, if they do, municipal electors will be better served by the three-year term.

A number of municipal politicians have expressed concern that prospective candidates or incumbents might be deterred from seeking office by a longer term. However, a survey by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicates that more than 60 per cent of all council members who were elected in 1980 were incumbents. It shows that people do seek more than just one two-year term. Also, large numbers of council members in all parts of the province have served three or more terms. So we find it difficult to accept the proposition that most council members do not wish to serve more than two years.

Some others have argued that the three-year term of office will reduce the already low level of voter turnout in Ontario municipal elections. I do not believe that this assumption is supported by the evidence; in fact, quite the contrary. We in Canada have been constantly called to the polls in federal, provincial and municipal elections. In the past decade, there have been at least nine elections altogether at all three levels of government in Ontario.

I think a major reason turnout in any single election seems to be low may be the number of times people have been called to the polls at various levels, because it seems some government is always holding an election. There are an increased number of advance polls, longer polling hours and so on.

The cost to individual voters in terms of inconvenience, loss of leisure time and the effort required to become informed in any particular election increases with the frequency of elections. For this reason, I think it is likely that less frequent elections will increase rather than decrease the level of voter turnout.

Elsewhere in Canada, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick already have a three-year term of office for all municipalities. Quebec, which is different in so many things, has a four-year term for urban municipalities, and smaller rural municipalities have a choice of two-year, three-year or four-year terms. To my knowledge, the three-year term of office works well in other jurisdictions. I believe the municipal electors of Ontario will be well served by the three-year term.

The government's view is that a uniform term of office serves to heighten public awareness of and interest in local government. As a consequence, voter turnout is likely to be higher if all municipalities have the same election dates. It would also be difficult to have different election dates for municipalities, because in many cases school boundaries and municipal boundaries are not the same. It would be difficult and in many cases confusing to hold elections at different times on different dates. If, as some propose, we had local options for a two- or three-year term in regions and areas with combined school boards, it would still be virtually impossible to have different election dates because of the overlap in boundaries.

For all these reasons we are recommending Bill 10, and we are recommending that there be a three-year uniform term throughout the province for municipal politicians.

Finally, I should note that although this bill overrides all other provincial legislation regarding term of office, during the course of this year we will be amending other legislation that makes reference to a two-year term, so that in the future we will provide consistency with this bill and avoid any confusion.

I commend this bill to the House and ask for its support.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this particular bill and to indicate at the outset that we will be supporting the bill.

The bill is important for various reasons, as I see it. It deals with about 835 municipalities, which until now have had two-year terms. After this bill is enacted into law and the first election takes place in November, they will be starting three-year terms.

It is important because every individual in every municipality will be affected and because in one way or another they will be saving money by going to the polls less frequently or for some other reason.

It is important because the municipalities of Ottawa and Metropolitan Toronto had three-year terms about 10 years ago and will be returning to three-year terms again. They certainly relish that idea.

The bill is important too because the province has finally seen the light and has listened to the municipalities in Ontario and to the Liberal Party, which has recommended a three-year term for at least the past four years.

The flip-flop of the government, which has become evident in the past few months, is particularly important because of the stance the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) took about a year and a half ago when his ministry incorporated municipalities. The present minister, too, as a colleague of that minister --

Mr. Nixon: They had to wait until the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs left town before they brought the bill in.

Mr. Epp: That's correct. They were going to bring it in last December, but the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was here so they decided to leave it until March 1982 when he was going to be out of town.

8:10 p.m.

Anyway, I do not know whether everybody is aware of the exchange of correspondence that took place between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, representing more than 600 municipalities at that time, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to read one or two paragraphs of a letter dated June 11, 1980, and signed by the president of AMO, Mr. Clark Mason. He says:

"The members of the board of directors, in considering the subject, expressed considerable objection to the thrust of your comments with respect to the difference in accountability of the three levels of government. There was overwhelming support for the opinion that your conclusion was both offensive and an affront to municipal elected representatives in Ontario. You suggested that legislators serving provincial and federal governments are more accountable because of the existence of the party system, the cabinet decision-making process and the opposition parties. Quite frankly, such a conclusion would appear to indicate a lack of understanding of the nature of local government."

That was written by the president of AMO, and was passed unanimously at a meeting held in Cambridge, I believe that same day. The letter was a response to the minister's public stance in the Legislature and a letter to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario saying that local municipalities were not responsible enough to have three-year terms; they did not have partisan politics and therefore they were not responsible enough and a number of things of that nature. The municipalities took exception to this and obviously dashed this letter out to acquaint the minister with the facts rather than with some particular reasons he had at the time.

We commend the government for finally seeing the light and switching horses and going in favour of the three-year term. The three-year term is particularly important for municipalities, because municipal politicians feel it is going to be more productive from the standpoint of legislation and various other aspects. In other words, they feel their budget planning needs a longer time.

We know that Metropolitan Toronto has a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars; in municipalities such as Hamilton, Ottawa, Kitchener and Windsor and London and so forth, there are budgets of millions of millions of dollars. They feel they need a longer time period to plan these expenditures and to prepare the elected representatives for the kind of onerous and important responsibilities they have.

By electing councillors for a three-year term, they are going to have that kind of time to study the budgets and to be able to take long-term views of a particular problem or proposition. Budget planning, major planning matters, assessment matters, major projects and so forth are going to be planned over a three-year period rather than over a two-year period.

In addition, there is the important aspect of saving money for individuals and municipalities. It has been estimated that the last election cost the city of Ottawa $500,000. That would just be the cost for the city itself of having the various polls established and having the various poll clerks and district returning officers in the polls, advertising, etc.

It was estimated a few years ago that the cost for an election in the city of Toronto would be at least $2 million. I think that is a very modest estimate and would have escalated considerably since then, if that was even accurate at that time. If one multiplies that by the number of municipalities in Ontario, one is talking about millions and millions of dollars that are spent by municipalities by having elections every two years.

By having two elections every six years rather than three elections every six years, one can save a considerable amount of money at the municipal level. That, of course, means less provincial expenditures too because of the transfer payments, the grants that go to municipalities; if they are not going to spend as much, maybe the province is not going to give them as much. Certainly, even if they spent more in the past, the province has always found reasons not to give them as much.

From the standpoint of individuals, we know that the successful mayor of Toronto last time spent more than $100,000; the losing mayoralty candidate spent just under $100,000. If one multiplies that times the various municipalities and candidates in the province, millions and millions of dollars will be saved on an individual basis.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, these particular expenditures that candidates have are not tax deductible or anything of this nature so that people often have to put in their own money, or supporters of various candidates give this money, without getting any benefit in the form of tax grants.

Another point I want to make is that, as the parliamentary assistant has alluded, there may very well be better turnouts at elections, but I want to add that when we do have municipal elections we get better turnouts when there is a contest for the mayoralty position rather than a very uninteresting kind of contest.

Before I close, I again want to draw to the attention of the parliamentary assistant and of this House my deep disappointment at the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing never distinguishes this House by his presence when legislation for municipal affairs and housing is discussed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is a very strange verb to use.

Mr. Epp: I knew some people would take exception to it. I thought it might be from across the House rather than from over on that side.

Anyway, I would very much appreciate if the minister would take his responsibilities seriously, particularly the legislative end of things, and come to this House once and try to defend some legislation that is being brought to the attention of this House.

In the year and more that he has been Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, he has yet to be here on a single piece of legislation. I think that is an affront to this House and to the public of this province.

Mr. Haggerty: Reduce his salary to $1.

Mr. Epp: We may have the opportunity yet to reduce it to $1. I remember when Cantrakon came up and we were going to reduce his salary to $1, he changed his tune very quickly and that has never risen again.

I want to reiterate that we are supporting this bill. I look forward to hearing the comments of the other speakers with respect to this debate.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to support this bill on behalf of the New Democratic Party and to make some comments about the bill itself.

I should note in passing that I am personally pleased that the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs has graced us with his absence this evening. It seems to me that always adds something to the tone and tenor of the debate of the place. It makes for a little classier effort.

The bill that is before us is similar in concept and principle to many of the resolutions and private bills which we as individual members of the party have put before the Legislature. Of course, it reflects the position of most of the larger municipal organizations in Ontario.

It has some faults. I think the very simplicity of the bill itself is in a sense a fault, because it does not reflect the kind of diversity that is present in municipal politics across the province. After all, we are really talking about such diverse animals as the municipal council of Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto council and small rural municipalities and school boards which really have very different sets of problems and to which the whole political process is quite different.

It is difficult in this one bill, with this one simplified principle, to try to meet the needs of such a diverse group.

8:20 p.m.

Let me speak about the positive side of this piece of legislation. I have been privileged to serve on municipal councils in the past, as have many members here. Even when the wonderful pleasure of regional government was stuck down our throats in the region of Durham, I managed to serve a three-year term; so I am perhaps in the unusual position of being able to compare the two-year term versus the three-year term.

Let me try to dispense with some myths that are around here. Somehow there is the notion that more democracy is involved if one has elections every two years. The only thing I can see in that process is that undeniably there are more elections, but I am not convinced that really brings us any more democracy.

There are occasions in municipal politics when one despairs somewhat about the number of people who vote during the course of elections and about the kind of elections that are held. There are many people in municipal politics in Ontario who are attempting to change that and to make the role of the municipal politician one that is larger in scope and more substantial in terms of a job.

I think almost all around Ontario the day has long since gone when someone went once a week to a municipal meeting and thereby discharged all of his or her duties as a municipal politician. In many of our municipalities, I would say the job of a municipal politician is much like that of a member of this Legislature. It is time-consuming. There is a lot of committee work involved. It is a full-time job. It is no longer a part-time occupation. It demands a great measure of stability. One thing a three-year term does bring to the municipal political scene is that stability.

Many people on municipal councils have been saying for some time that there is an odd time sequence involved in a two-year term. There is a period of about six months to a year learning the position and then another six months to a year thinking about the next set of elections. Unfortunately, that leaves little time in the middle to develop policies and programs and to implement the ideas many municipalities are into these days.

One of the positive sides of a three-year term, in my view, is that it brings a measure of stability to municipal politics, which often is as complicated as provincial or even federal politics these days. There is some time for planning, some time to learn new roles and some time, not just to think about new policies and programs for one's municipality but also during which one can actually implement and then assess policies before one goes back to the political process.

I am relatively satisfied that a three-year term does not do any great negative things. In other words, some of the hyperbole that surrounds this kind of debate really does not serve us well.

This bill is rather simple in nature. That is, at once, a strength and a weakness. I would have preferred to have seen a piece of legislation which offered something that came closer to the diversified nature of municipal politics in Ontario. Unfortunately, it does not do that. Some of my colleagues are going to speak about that aspect of this legislation, not at great length but with great sincerity.

Mr. Foulds: And with great insight.

Mr. Rotenberg: Is that a promise?

Mr. Breaugh: It is not in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program but, yes, it is a promise.

The municipal organizations are not of one mind on this proposal. Municipal politicians, who are of many different stripes and thoughts on this matter, are not unified on it. From my point of view and that of my party, it is a sensible, rational way for us to proceed by putting into place a three-year political term.

Most of our municipalities, and in particular all of our larger urban municipal councils and school boards, will be well served, in fact better served, by this three-year term. It is my opinion, one that is shared by most people in my caucus, that it will do little damage to the political process even in small rural areas where it is easier to have an election.

That simply recognizes that in a community like my own, the city of Oshawa, where people are expected to run for municipal council at large, that is city-wide, and the city's population is now around 115,000 people, it is very difficult for an individual to become known and to participate in the political process on that basis by himself.

I suppose politics in such a community is much more akin to provincial politics in scope and size. It is difficult for an individual to run for council unless he is prepared to get organized well in advance and to run almost a provincial political style of campaign.

In many of our other areas, for example in Brock township, there are smaller geographical areas involved and much smaller population bases involved; so there it is still possible for a rural Ontario politician to function without a great team and a great organization and a great deal of expense.

Mr. Samis: They have a great mayor in Brock.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a great mayor in Brock township; Mr. MacPhail is an excellent person, recognized by all those within the region of Durham. It is to this Legislature's great shame that he has never had the opportunity to join us here, although he did try on numerous occasions.

Mr. Samis: And may again.

Mr. Breaugh: And may again.

The bill is simplistic. It does not do many of the things that we would like to see surrounding municipal elections these days. I am told there will be some legislation forthcoming at a subsequent date which will deal with those matters we have long asked for.

At the very minimum we would like to see some opportunity to apply at the municipal level those things that now apply provincially and federally: some form of disclosure and perhaps in some instances a kind of full-tilt election expenses process. There are all kinds of alternatives there. Another of my colleagues later in the debate hopes to have the opportunity to put before the House an amendment to the bill which will address itself to parts of that problem.

In closing, we find that the legislation in general is supportable. It will provide some measure of stability for most of our municipal councils and school boards. It is the consensus within our caucus that it will do no damage to those areas where there is probably not a great deal of reason for making any change to the length of the term of municipal office.

In the course of the debate we hope to offer an opportunity to some of our members to express opposing views on the matter, because we do recognize they are legitimate. It is slightly amusing to listen this evening to some speakers, particularly on the Conservative side and particularly the member who led off, speak strongly in favour of a three-year term. I had the opportunity to listen to him just a short time ago speaking strongly against the three-year term.

When we see the Conservative government in Ontario with glacial speed adopting simple, common sense ideas like this three-year term it does give us some small measure of hope.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for a whip to get up and speak on a bill, and the only reason I am --

Mr. Riddell: Why? Why is it unusual?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I haven't even started yet.

Why is the honourable member giving me trouble already? Could I ask the opposite members to try to forget for a moment that I am the whip and to regard me as just a regular member? I want to speak to the bill because I have an interest in it.

Some of the members sitting in the House tonight, who were probably sitting in the House when this matter was brought up some three, four or five years ago, probably would not remember it because as is normal they were probably sleeping or not paying attention. However, some of the members will recall that this matter was discussed in amendments to the Municipal Elections Act --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Wait for it, wait for it. For goodness' sake, I haven't even started yet; let me say what I want to say. I have been kind to them, for goodness' sake.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister address his remarks to the bill, please.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I am attempting to, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to address myself to it.

Amendments to the Municipal Elections Act came up three or four years ago, and some of the members may recall the matter of whether the term would be two years or three years was addressed then. At that time I took a certain amount of pride in the fact that I opposed my government in its bill regarding a two-year term. As a matter of fact, I sided with the opposition, which was suggesting a three-year term. I mention that with sort of self-gratification, because it has finally come into being in this bill. It is something I have supported for many years, particularly since I was a councillor serving in the city of Mississauga.

Some of the members in the third party have never experienced that, so they will not know what I am talking about. Having been a member of the council of the city of Mississauga, I know what I am talking about. I was there for a few years and I was fortunate enough to be elected --

8:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: You're experienced but you still don't have any knowledge.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: For goodness' sake why don't you sit down and listen for a while? My remarks might not be very important to you, but will you at least give me the satisfaction of saying them?

When I was a councillor I was fortunate enough to be elected at the time the region of Peel was formed. At that time it was a three-year term, so I had the experience of being elected and serving only under three-year terms. I learned the value of having a year to learn my way around, and I doubt there is anybody in this House who served on a municipal council who took less than that to learn his way around in his first time in politics. I had the benefit of finding my way in the first year and having a couple of years to apply whatever skills I had as a municipal councillor.

Mr. Mancini: I think your limousine has gone.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: There are 10,000 comedians out of work and you are still trying.

Mr. Laughren: Nobody takes you seriously.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Don't take me seriously. I don't care. I want to say this because I was there and you poor fellows were not.

Mr. Foulds: Carry on. Great speech.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: May I?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I won't get mad, and I ask members opposite to remember that I don't get mad, I get even.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: We might well remember that.

At any rate, what I am trying to say is that I feel sincerely from the experience I had on council that a three-year term as a minimum is very necessary. Certainly I think some of the members on the Liberal side who have probably had more experience in municipal councils will agree that a two-year term is not really sufficient to learn the art of politics, if that is the best way to describe it, to have the experience to do some good and to contribute to the action necessary on a municipal council. I take a certain amount of pride in supporting that and in saying that I have had this view since I arrived here in 1975. I continue to have this view and I certainly do support it.

Someone mentioned that there is a certain amount of benefit in having elections more often because it is democracy in action if we have them every two years. I suppose the same logic would tell us that if we have them every year it is even more democratic. I just do not believe that because --

Mr. McClellan: Neither does anybody else.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: No, of course they don't.

Mr. Breaugh: You are so far right it isn't even funny.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That's right. I have not heard anybody disagree; I must be right this time. Is that right? You have not disagreed yet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Oh God, they are mouthy tonight, aren't they?

I do find that the experience in municipal elections, and it is probably worse in school boards than it is for --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, do you have any control over the House at all and could you exercise it, please?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The point I am trying to make is that I do not think the argument that the lesser the term the higher the turnout is effective at all. My friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has mentioned that the turnout in municipal elections is somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent and that is under a two-year term. I suppose I could make the argument that with a longer term perhaps the voting populace would take it more seriously and maybe we would get a larger turnout. I do not expect that that is going to be so. I do not think it is going to change very much, so I really do not think the turnout in elections should be a basis for the term.

I have to mention this because a great many of my caucus are not very happy about this particular move.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Gregory: There's one.

This has been expressed, and we have done a great deal of -- I confess that in our caucus we have not been entirely unanimous in our discussions about this matter. Certain of our members --

Mr. Swart: That is why the whip is speaking.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: No. The whip is speaking because he feels rather strongly about this.

Mr. Speaker: Would you just address your remarks to me.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I merely wanted to confess to the members opposite that our caucus has not been entirely unanimous in the discussions of this. However, as is typical of Conservative unity, we will probably all take a similar position on this matter. I can sympathize with the rural members.

Mr. Sargent: Time, time.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member for Grey-Bruce should wait for it. He will have lots of time to get up and speak later. He can hammer me and I will listen.

I feel some sympathy with members from rural ridings. For some reason, the local councils, whether they are reflecting the views of their voters or whether they are reflecting what they seem to see as the view of their voters, do not see a three-year term as being feasible. I can see this viewpoint of these rural members, but I think that for the majority of people of Ontario this has to be the most intelligent way to go.

I do feel that even the rural members in our caucus are ready to support this bill even though it is not totally reflective of their municipal councils or of their local school boards. We feel it is important, certainly in a rural area like Mississauga East, that the members of council have a sufficient term to learn their trade, to be able to apply their trade and to be able to pass important bylaws. To do the best for Mississauga, they need a longer term, and certainly I would support that 100 per cent as I have right along.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to let me speak. I know the opposition did not appreciate that. They do not think I should have a viewpoint at all. However, I think we have said what we had to say. Thank you.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the bill extending the length of the term of office on a municipal level from the two-year period to a three-year period. I know that as previous speakers have mentioned there is not necessarily unanimity among those who are in the various levels of public life as to whether a three-year term should be adopted.

However, I speak from practical experience, having sat on a municipal council for six years back in the earlier days when even a one-year term was fairly common in many municipalities. Seeing how more and more complex municipal business has become as the years went by, I think it is reasonable to assume that a three-year term would be far more advantageous in attracting better candidates.

Also, I think it would be better for the educational process for the newly elected candidate. He generally cannot pick up any experience through book learning. It is sort of an on-the-job training experience. He very often does not become effective until after at least one year in office. That means one half of the two-year term was solely an exercise in learning rather than one in being productive. I cannot speak for all members in elective office because there are some who catch on to the process quite quickly and, as a result, become very adept after an extremely short period of time.

However, while we are amending the Municipal Elections Act, I think the minister should have expanded that act. Instead of dealing solely with a three-year term, he should have had built into the act some of the procedures now present in provincial and federal elections, that is, there should be some limitation put on the expenditures of individuals at the municipal level.

8:40 p.m.

It is nothing unusual, as has been mentioned by my colleague, to find that $100,000 is spent on running for elective office here in the city of Toronto. Naturally, Toronto being a big municipality, we can expect that expenditures are going to be substantial, but the smaller municipalities do not necessarily have that. However, there should still be certain limitations put on the amount an individual can spend.

I have introduced a private member's bill that put on a limitation. I do not intend to make any more mention of that, but I think it is incumbent on the legislators to make the battle fairly even so that the individual who has limited financial resources has the same opportunity of running for public office as does the one who is backed either by those who have greater financial resources or by machines such as we see on the US political scene. I think there should be accountability as far as municipal elections are concerned. The individual should submit to all the procedures, and perhaps more procedures than we have in our provincial Election Finances Reform Act, so that the battle is an even fight rather than giving the individual who can raise the most money a distinct advantage.

We find that at the provincial level when we see one minister spending $125,000 to get elected and some others who are present in the House here spending no more than 15 or 20 cents a voter. I should not say so small an amount, but probably no more than $1 per elector in the riding. I think that is unfair. I would certainly like to see accountability in municipal elections in addition to the three-year term. All elective offices should have the principle of accountability.

I would also suggest to the House that even though election time has been moved up substantially, if we want to get people to the ballot box, the government will have to change the election day and have voting in a warmer weather month than it is at present. I can recall one election in Windsor when there was such a heavy snowfall that a lot of people could not get out to vote. That is completely unfair. We all know that in September possibly it will be at least fairly warm and the weather in itself would encourage individuals to vote in addition to the candidates who are running.

I bring these points up knowing they are not in the bill but hoping the minister or the ministry will take those suggestions under consideration and introduce some type of legislation to put controls on municipal election expenses as we do in the provincial and/or federal field.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill 10 which is before us at this time. I realize this bill is going to pass. All three parties seem to be on side on this. I was a bit surprised when the announcement of this bill was made last summer by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that he was going to go for a three-year term. I was surprised in a sense and in a sense I was not because I realize that the government last year, as it had been for two or three years, was under tremendous pressure from municipal politicians. They wanted more revenue to be given to them. The government did not want to do that so it thought it would do a complete flip-flop and give them a three-year term.

I suggest the arguments that have been heard tonight and which we will be hearing more about -- such as, "We need three-year terms to get programs completed," "It will save money for municipalities and for candidates" and "We will have better planning," and all that sort of thing -- are really very secondary to the political implications of this. The fact is that the government, and perhaps all of us in all the parties, want to please a certain percentage of our supporters, those municipal politicians. All of us, in all parties, have felt some pressure. Therefore, we have this bill before us because that pressure was exerted most strongly on the government.

In the few minutes I am going to take, I want to put forward a bit on the other side of this bill. I realize that in doing that I may get more heckling from my own colleagues than I get from the opposition or the government, but I think there are some things that should be said about this.

I think it is probably true to say there is a minority viewpoint among municipal politicians who think we should continue with the two-year term. I am not sure it is a minority. It may even be a majority of the politicians who feel there should be a two-year term. I am quite satisfied that there is a large minority in this House, regardless of how they vote, who also feel that a two-year term should continue. However, the bill, as we know, is going to pass.

I wonder why the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not here tonight. Members will remember how strongly he spoke. I guess he is not here because he cannot do the flip-flop as easily as the parliamentary assistant can do and so he is not going to be here tonight to take part.

Mr. Haggerty: Which way are you going to vote? Two years ago you voted --

Mr. Swart: I have never done anything other than support the two-year term for municipal councils. I know that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario at its convention last August overwhelmingly supported the three-year term against the two-year term. I suggest that may not be completely representative of the feelings of councils of this province.

Many members will know that a survey was taken back in 1975, which is a number of years ago. It was a very detailed survey taken by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. They sent out questionnaires to 793 municipalities and 455 replied. That was a 57.3 per cent response. Of those municipalities, 383 voted in favour of the two-year term. Only 70 municipalities voted in favour of the three-year term. When that goes out and the councils themselves vote on it, that is perhaps about as good an indication as one can get. I concede there may have been some changes in views since that time, but I suggest if the same kind of survey were taken now, one would find that a great many municipalities in this province, perhaps a majority, are still in favour of the two-year term.

8:50 p.m.

I want to deal with three or four of the arguments that were put forward on the issues that were raised. They say there would be longer-term planning in the municipalities if there were three-year terms. There may well be. There would be more planning if there were five-year terms or if there were seven-year terms. I just want to point out that the average municipal life expectancy of a person elected to a municipal council is about seven years. There is a less than a one-third turnover in municipal elections. Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of continuity, but there is the opportunity for new municipal councillors to come in and bring in new life. I say it is important to have new municipal councillors to bring in new life. There is that continuity and yet they have to have new blood coming in.

It was stated that it is going to cost more. Of course there are going to be more expenditures if municipal elections occur every two years instead of every three years, but that is the price we pay in a democracy. We could have provincial and federal elections at longer periods of time and save money on it, but if we really believe in accountability to the public, then we have to have elections fairly frequently and that cost is incurred. There are more expenditures to municipal councillors in running every two years rather than every three years. That has already been covered. My colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has constantly raised the issue of an election expenses act for municipal people.

We are concerned about equality. As proposed by the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), we could put limits on the expenditures and have an election expenses act like the provincial and federal acts, so there is compensation for those who run for public office and who are serious about being elected.

They say that more experience is good. Perhaps it is good. I was rather interested in the comments in the Archer study on the Niagara Peninsula which was done by Bill Archer, whom all the members who have been around for a while will know. He had a long term. He strongly recommended the two-year term be continued and he made these comments:

"The commission strongly recommends that the two-year term of office should be continued as it is more concerned with ability than with longevity. Politicians who are going to accomplish anything can do it within a two-year term." That comes from an experienced politician. Experience is important and continuity is important, but as I stated, new blood is also important on municipal councils and there is more opportunity to get it with a two-year term.

They say there will be more turnover at elections. I have already discussed that. They talk about voter turn-out. They think there will be more voter turn-out with a three-year term. I think we have to analyse a bit further rather than just say that somehow if we have an election every three years more people will turn out at that election than will if we have an election every two years.

I suggest that the reverse is true. People do not turn out at municipal elections to a very large extent because, generally speaking, there are no political parties running. They are often voting for individuals whom they do not know. They do not know their policies. If we have elections every three years with less accountability back to the voters, fewer people will turn out rather than more. It depends on the consciousness of the voters, and the voters will be more conscious of their municipal councils if they elect them every two years than if they elect them every three years.

Simply, the crux of why I feel strongly about the two-year term instead of the three-year term is that the two-year term is more democratic. There is more accountability when people have to go back to seek election every two years. Whether it is a provincial government or a federal government or a municipal government, the people get something just before an election. That is when governments give. If a federal election was only six months away, Trudeau would be lowering the interest rates, make no mistake about it, but he has another couple of years to go. Then he will start mending fences about six months or a year before the next election rolls around.

That is typical of governments. If one has a longer term, there will be less accountability. There is 50 per cent more opportunity if one has elections every two years rather than three years for people who want to run for municipal office. It is that simple; there is 50 per cent more opportunity.

I conclude by saying I admit it will not be a catastrophe if this bill is passed. Municipal government will go on, but we will have lost a little bit of democracy. Local government will be a little further away from the people than it is now and the cynicism that pervades governments generally will be a bit further enhanced by what we are going to do.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about Bill 10. I have mixed feelings about it. Coming from a rural community, I share some of the concerns the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) mentioned about a two-year versus a three-year term. Many of my caucus members have the same concern, but there is also the other aspect that has been mentioned by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that there should be consideration of the three-year term.

I hold the riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. The Peel section is in support of the three-year term. The other two thirds of my riding is in support of the two-year term. I have mixed emotions about it, because regardless of which way I go I cannot win. Having served on my municipal council for several years, I feel I have a great deal of support for the two-year concept. I feel there is much merit in what the member for Welland-Thorold has just spoken about.

At the same time, I feel the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has mixed emotions because apparently it makes one decision when it has a public meeting in Toronto, then, when there is a private meeting with each individual council making a decision, when maybe there is a little more pressure, it reverses its stand. So I am not sure about that.

As a member of this Legislature, I feel I have the right to express my concerns about going from a two- to a three-year term. I am not in favour of it and yet I am not opposed to it. I have mixed emotions. I accept the views expressed by the parliamentary assistant to the minister. I feel, contrary to the member for Waterloo North's statement that we should have the minister here, that we on this side have a great deal of confidence in our parliamentary assistants. When we appoint them, we appoint them to do a job and this is typical of a parliamentary assistant representing his ministry and doing an excellent job. I want to give credit to the parliamentary assistant for doing an excellent job tonight.

I would also like to take exception to a remark made by the member for Waterloo North. I have a great deal of respect for him but I would like to draw the attention of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), who is busy reading now, to the remark made by the member for Waterloo North a few minutes ago pertaining to Cantrakon. I feel a little offended by this remark because Cantrakon was originally intended to go in my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. Because of opposition from the New Democratic Party and some Liberals, it did not go there. It went into another riding. That bothers me.

The member for Waterloo North made a remark about our minister being involved in this. I think he should consult with the member for Grey and ask his opinion on this because I think he is directly opposite to the member for Waterloo North's viewpoint on this basic issue. This may be once, but it is going to happen again. I feel on this occasion, with the Cantrakon issue, the member for Grey was right on. I hope in future the member gives consideration to his viewpoint and mine when we are discussing concerns about the Niagara Escarpment that affect our constituents.

9 p.m.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections please.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The only reason I brought it up was because that party's member introduced it earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the bill now.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yes, sir. In conclusion, I would like to mention the fact that I think the comments of the member for Welland-Thorold in opposition to what the member for Oshawa said just a few minutes earlier, maybe express the concerns of all the members of this Legislature, that regardless of politics, this is one of the areas where one is never right or never wrong. It is kind of a mixed deal and hopefully we can come out with something that is acceptable to the majority of municipalities in Ontario and certainly to the constituents, the voting public, so that in some way we are making the right decision tonight.

I would assume members of the three parties have different views. I do not think it is a matter of one party having one strong sentiment in favour of one issue and another being opposed to it. I think many members in the three parties have concerns. I hope the decision we reach tonight is in the best interests of the people of this province.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the debate concerning Bill 10. I know you are feeling pretty cross today, Mr. Speaker, so I will try to stick to the contents of the bill and I will not stray the way the chief government whip and some of the other members did.

I see the chief government whip has left. I know that while he was giving his speech his limousine was running and that they were waiting for him, ready to zoom him to Mississauga East.

This bill has been debated in several forums around Queen's Park. I can recall when the private bills committee received a brief and a bill from the city of Windsor concerning the extension of the municipal term from two years to three years. At that time we had a minority government and I believe the majority of the committee voted in favour of that bill. I cannot recall who the New Democratic Party members were, but they joined with us in supporting the mayor of Windsor and his municipal council and we voted in favour of extending the municipal term from two to three years.

The government did not move on that suggestion and that honest gesture made by the private bills committee, and the government members on the committee gave us 101 reasons why these people involved in municipal politics should sit for two years and not for three.

Frankly, I do not understand why the government has brought in the bill. I really do not know why they have changed their minds. They certainly have not given us any reasons yet this evening in the debate as to why they have changed their minds. But I suspect they detect that they will be able to derive some measure of political credit for this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that this government, this Conservative Party that rules Ontario, does not do a single thing. They take no initiatives whatsoever, except for my friend the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) who is here chatting with me this evening. He is one of the few over there who does things because he honestly believes what he is doing is correct. But all the rest of them do not undertake any initiatives whatsoever unless they see an underlying political credit to the whole thing.

I listened very intently to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and I thought he made some good points; yes sir, indeed. However, he was talking about a different subject matter altogether; it had nothing to do with Bill 10. I want to tell the member that Bill 10 extends the municipal term from two years to three years and has nothing to do with Cantrakon.

I have discussed this matter with some of the municipal officials in my riding. I represent 12 municipalities. I have to say to the members of the House that some of the municipal officials are concerned about the extension in the term. I say some are concerned. I do not think I ran into any municipal officials or talked to any municipal officials who were outright against this particular measure, or who spoke to me in emphatic terms or asked me to vote against this bill.

I personally see this as an advantage to the municipalities, whether they are small or large. Frankly, I do not agree with the thought that large municipalities need an extra year, because they have planning problems and all kinds of projects under way, etc., and, therefore, need the extra year for continuity.

Small municipalities have the same planning problems, on a different scale but all relative, as the large municipalities. These million-dollar sewage projects, million-dollar waterline projects and things of that nature, cause small municipalities to have the same planning problems as the large municipalities. In that regard, I think it would be somewhat helpful for these municipalities and these officials to have the three-year extended term.

As we look around different jurisdictions, we know that in the United States many of the municipalities have four-year terms. I do not see any less democracy in those states or those cities because of the four-year term. I do not think we will see any less democracy in our municipal government by extending this provision to the municipalities.

I have seen occasions where, because of the personalities of different people elected to the same council, because of these different personalities and the different issues that come up, the work of the council just grinds to a halt and comes to a standstill. On those rare occasions, yes, the extended term would not be as beneficial to the municipalities and to the general public as it otherwise would be. But for the most part, I believe the municipal officials to be decent, honest people who are elected to serve and to do the best they can for their constituents. On those merits alone I think it is enough to support the extension of this term.

I did want to say a little bit more about the chief government whip, but I do not want to be provocative this evening. I know other members wish to speak and time is running short.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some serious concerns about Bill 10. I do not do this lightly. I suppose I was in a position somewhat similar to that of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who saw arguments on both sides of the issue. I listened very carefully to what that member said and realized he was unable to come to a resolution, or at least I could not find a resolution in his statement. I have been able to come to a resolution.

I owe a debt to the chief government whip in that I was not exactly sure of what position I should take on this bill. I did a lot of thinking about it until the chief government whip got up and said he was in favour of the three-year term. Then I knew right away what my position should be. I listened very closely to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and the comments he made. I am glad to say I am able to agree with his view that this bill is too simple. It does not deal with the vast differences among municipalities in this province.

I represent a riding that has 25 or 26 municipalities within its boundaries. Those municipalities range from the township of Thompson, which I think has only 60 ratepayers -- I think it is one of the smallest in Ontario -- to the largest municipality in my riding, the township of Michipicoten, or Wawa, which has approximately 5,000 people.

9:10 p.m.

I know the Speaker is very familiar with that community. He will understand the municipalities I represent are small and do not have the same kinds of problems that larger municipalities may face in relation to the length of term. They do not have the kinds of problems that candidates would have in elections, the costs they face and the need to have a longer term in order to deal more effectively as municipal councillors. That is not a problem for most rural municipalities and I regret that this bill does not take into account the differences among the municipalities of this province.

It appears this bill is the result of pressure from those large municipalities upon this government and that here we have another example of the large running roughshod over the small in Ontario, and I regret that.

There have been a lot of arguments presented this evening as to why we should have fewer elections at the municipal level. The argument has been made that in large municipalities it is coming to a position where it costs a great deal to run in a municipal election, that in Metro Toronto it is as costly to run a municipal election as a provincial election, or more costly perhaps. For that reason they argue we should therefore have fewer elections.

If one were to follow that argument to its illogical conclusion, one should say: "All right, because it costs a great deal for elections, we should have fewer and fewer elections at all levels. What we should do is elect mayors for life. It would certainly cut down on the cost and we would not have the situation where municipal politicians were having to run from one election to another without the opportunity to learn the job." Those are the kinds of arguments that have been made this evening.

I and my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) --

Mr. Piché: How much longer are you going to be?

Mr. Wildman: I was going to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but obviously the member for Cochrane North wants me to go on at greater length. I know many of the municipalities in his area do not support this bill. I know many of them believe small rural municipalities do not need a three-year term.

It appears that my colleague from Welland-Thorold and myself, perhaps along with the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, are a minority here speaking in favour of accountability at the municipal level. I do not want to be provocative because I know members have thought about this legislation very carefully. But I really do believe that at the municipal level we should maintain as close a contact between the ratepayers and their elected officials as possible and that there should be as great an opportunity as possible for accountability.

I do not think the arguments that have been raised in favour of extension of term really relate to what we understand to be democracy. We are not talking about a jurisdiction that carries out the kinds of budgets that are carried on at the provincial or federal level. I think it has no relevance to argue that because provincial politicians usually have a four-year term municipal politicians should have a longer term too.

I hope many members, especially those representing rural ridings, will think very carefully about this legislation and will reconsider the arguments that have been made. It just does not make sense to say that because elections cost a lot we should have fewer elections. Democracy can be expensive and it is valuable. It also does not make sense to say the two-year term is too short and people do not have time to learn the job and be effective members.

I think over the history of this province we have had many effective municipal politicians and all or most have had two-year terms. For that matter, in the jurisdiction south of the border, the United States Congress deals with a two-year term and to argue that a small municipality must have a three-year term in order to be effective raises the question as to how on earth a congressional representative can represent his district effectively with only a two-year term.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: I hear from the other side that the congressmen do not represent their districts effectively, that they are very ineffective. Thank you very much. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant can really say that every congressman in the United States is ineffective and that his ineffectiveness is only attributable to his two-year term. That is an interesting argument and one that I am sure many political scientists would like to dispute with the parliamentary assistant across the way.

Finally, in response to the comments that have been made about the absence of the minister when legislation dealing with municipal government is presented, I would say the more he is absent the better. I would hope his parliamentary assistant will be able to continue to carry on the hard work he has been asked to do by his minister, especially after the kind of comments he has made about the United States Congress. If this parliamentary assistant can make that kind of learned assessment, that is what we need and we do not need the rather simplistic views of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Mr. Eakins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I did not cast my eyes to the right.

Mr. Eakins: You did not see him, Mr. Speaker, so I will carry on.

The Deputy Speaker: No, we must continue with the rotation. The member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into this debate and I assure you I will not take long. I have 34 municipalities in my riding and although I have never taken a poll of those municipalities I am sure the majority of them would be supportive of a two-year term.

Time will tell whether we are going to obtain a bigger voter turnout with a three-year term. I believe, as the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) said, we are losing just a little bit of our democracy when we go to a three-year term. Those are all my comments.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comment on this. I want to commend a number of the members of all parties who have spoken on this because I think it is very important indeed.

I have had some municipal background as a councillor and as a mayor and I can express the feelings of many of the smaller community municipal people in this province. In fact, I appreciate very much that my leader has given me the responsibility of speaking for some of the smaller communities of this province as far as rural municipalities are concerned.

I had the pleasure of serving on the last complete review of the Municipal Elections Act, which I believe was in 1968 or 1969, when the late Mayor Albert Campbell and myself represented the mayors of Ontario on that review, which was under the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time, Darcy McKeough. At that time we opted for the two-year term. Of course, there have been some changes since then, but I feel tonight that many things have not changed in many parts of rural Ontario, and I feel that many parts of rural Ontario are shortchanged.

9:20 p.m.

Many of the discussions in this House centre on the needs of the large cities, the large urban municipalities, and we have a tendency to forget the smaller communities. As the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) mentioned, there are two distinct differences and I would like to see the minister address himself to some of the concerns of the rural people versus the large municipalities.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the member for Cochrane North disturbing the present speaker?

Mr. Piché: I represent a lot of people and I know they don't need that three-year term.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will have an opportunity to participate in the debate shortly and we will be looking forward to his comments.

Mr. Eakins: One of the concerns is that the urban municipalities provide more opportunity for full-time service because they receive greater remuneration, the responsibilities are different, therefore many of the people who serve on a large metro council give pretty well their full time. But in some of the smaller rural communities they cannot give their full time, and certainly they have to depend on other employment.

We are finding that when election time comes around many of the council positions are filled by acclamation and there are some in which they have to have additional nomination meetings in order to fill the post. I know many have said to me that on a three-year term they are going to have to reconsider; they enjoy serving the community, but they are not sure they can commit themselves to those three years.

The county of Haliburton, for instance, has been almost unanimous in opposing the three-year term. I believe there are only two on that council who favoured the three-year term. There is one county council that is almost unanimous in opposing this. I think we have to take into consideration the needs and the concerns of many of the smaller communities of this province, and I would say that my preference would be for the two-year term.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this bill and I believe I am joined by a great many municipal councillors and by the thoughtful reports of several commissions that have examined regional government in this province in the last few years. I think we do have to recognize that times change. I am not sure whether the government, in bringing in this legislation almost 10 years after they set the two-year term, have recognized that times changed or whether they have simply recognized the vibrations they hear when they put their ears to the ground. Up until a year ago the two-year term was holy writ to the government. All of a sudden they have found a lot of arguments in favour of the three-year term.

We have discussed the pros and cons of the two-year versus the three-year term in our caucus over the past decade as well, and we have come to the conclusion that in this day and age the three-year term will be conducive to better government. Mr. Speaker, you have heard some of the pros and cons that were tossed back and forth in our caucus and in the House, but if you look at the complexity of the issues that are facing municipal governments today and the greater responsibilities that are being assigned to local governments with delegation of powers and with new legislation, it appears the consensus is that a three-year term will produce more democratic and better government.

Under the present system most councillors spend their first year learning their jobs and their second year politicking to get re-elected. They do not learn very much in that time. With the longer term, they can consider long-term plans and, as they gain knowledge and experience, can also become more independent of municipal officials who should be their servants and not their masters. These are important considerations with many of the larger governments.

A longer term may also attract better qualified candidates who are prepared to make the position a full-time job. Municipal office should not be just a prep school for back-benchers in the Legislature. It should be a career equal to a career as a member of the Legislature or a member of Parliament but, with the short two-year term, few people will be attracted to it as a career. The remuneration may be considerably less if it is considered a short-term leave of absence from another occupation. However, if it is a full-time career, the remuneration will be improved.

There are all these reasons why we should have a three-year term. It always seemed illogical to me that provincial and federal members should have to be assessed by the electorate only every four or five years, while local councillors and school boards are expected to be accountable every two years.

As to accountability, I believe all elected persons should be accountable to the electorate in more ways than a vote every few years. I think accountability can be better achieved through public meetings, through opportunities for citizens to appear as deputations before councils and committees, and through questions they can pose to their councillors in accountability meetings.

People have said this is a simple bill. It is simple in that it deals with only one aspect of municipal election reform. It has been put forward as a means of achieving better government, but it will not achieve better government unless it is accompanied by a package of other reforms that are badly needed in the municipal election field.

There must be laws to go along with it requiring disclosure of election expenses and contributions. There must be a limit to those contributions as well. I intend to propose an amendment to this bill to add that dimension. It would simply require candidates to itemize all expenditures over $100 and to publish a list of the names and addresses of all contributors who give 100 or more in money, goods or services, and it would show the amounts of their contributions. If my disclosure amendment is adopted --

The Deputy Speaker: You had better speak to the bill.

Ms. Bryden: All right, I will speak about the amendment later. It could go into effect for next year's election and we would then have that as part of the package.

Another thing lacking in the package is the question of a municipal election finances reform act similar to the provincial Election Finances Reform Act which would control the level of contributions. I would hope it would also control the level of expenditures, which our present provincial act does not do. I do not think that should be an amendment to this bill. I think it should be a companion bill and I have placed a resolution on the Order Paper calling for such a municipal election finances reform act.

9:30 p.m.

Third, this bill should recognize a problem that has come to my attention from many cottage owners. They are, in effect, disfranchised from exercising their municipal vote, whether it is a two-year term or a three-year term, because voting day and the advance polls are after Thanksgiving weekend. If advance polls could be held on the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, all those cottage owners would have an opportunity to exercise their franchise and have a say in the affairs of the municipality in which they reside for a good part of the year and to which they pay taxes.

This is an amendment that should be brought in by the government. All it would require is moving the date of the election back to the fourth Monday in October, which would then allow for an advance poll the Thanksgiving weekend after nomination day. I urge the government to consider that as a companion election reform bill.

Finally, part of election reform and the three-year term in this municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and probably in other regional governments, should be direct election of municipal councillors. The Robarts commission on Metro Toronto government in 1977 recommended a package of a three-year term, direct election of municipal councillors, a disclosure law, as I have suggested, and even giving municipalities the power to subsidize a percentage of election expenses, as is done at the provincial and federal levels. That sort of a package should be part of this bill. My amendment on disclosure will bring in part of it.

I would like to see us consider this change to a three-year term as contingent on putting the other pieces of the jigsaw in place so that we have true electoral reform at the municipal level. It does not make sense just to change the term.

I can understand the concerns of many people who have spoken in the House here, including some of my colleagues, about the difficulty of making a uniform law fit all kinds of municipalities in this province. What we are doing tonight is saying that uniformity is more important than allowing a local option for municipalities, which may not find the three-year term as advantageous as the larger municipalities.

There are disadvantages to a lack of uniformity. We would have elections perhaps on different days around the province and people would have different lengths of office. I opt for uniformity myself, because I think it affects a larger proportion of the population to have the three-year term. But I can recognize the problems with the smaller municipalities. In a way, we are trading off a local option provision for them in favour of uniformity.

For those reasons I am supporting the bill and I will be moving an amendment in committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair now recognizes the member for Cochrane North. No? Oh, I am sorry; the member for --

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to speak and I will be very pleased to debate what we are talking about right now. But as you are probably aware -- I do not why you mentioned my name -- I am not part of the debate right now.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry; the member for Huron-Middlesex.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to distinguish between the members of this Legislature who represent urban areas and those who represent rural areas. The House may recall this government's obsession with imposing regional government throughout Ontario back in the 1960s and the early 1970s. The by-elections of 1973 in St. George and Huron-Middlesex put a stop to the further imposition of regional government in Ontario.

It is obvious to me that this government has the same attitude we heard expressed by the chief government whip, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), when he stated: "I do not get mad, I just get even." That is exactly what this government is doing in introducing this bill. It is going to try to get regional government in the rest of Ontario and, if it cannot do it by coming in the front door, it is going to do it by coming in the back door.

The municipal officials in Huron-Middlesex are very disturbed by the minister's acceptance of and obvious intention to act upon the recommendation of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to change the term of office of municipal councils from two to three years. I believe this recommendation is a result of pressure from the politicians of large municipalities and that, despite the pious reasons cited, their motives are mainly self-serving.

Mr. Piché: I agree fully. I will vote on your side.

Mr. Riddell: I hope this bill comes to a vote. It looks to me as if we have a little agreement on all sides of the House to retain the two-year term.

I hope the minister will pause long enough to consider the plight of small towns, villages and townships. In the comparatively few years that the two-year term has been in effect, it has become almost the norm to have no-contest elections in such municipalities. Over the same time, municipal business has become more and more time-consuming. In large municipalities, much of the added load has been turned over to staff and stipends for elected officials have become high enough to attract some well-qualified people.

In small municipalities, economics inhibit both wholesale hiring and attractive stipends. It has become difficult to find people who are able and willing to commit themselves to the required amount of time, away from their businesses and families, to serve on a municipal council for a two-year period, let alone a three-year period.

Municipal officials in Huron-Middlesex are not advocating a return to the one-year term, but they are vigorously protesting the proposed change from two to three years, as such a change can only exacerbate what is already a serious problem for all the smaller municipalities of the province.

Mr. Hennessy: Time.

Mr. Riddell: Are you going to speak on this? What do you represent? Whom do you represent?

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable member please address the bill?

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would support the amendment the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) intends to propose in connection with advance polls. There is no question the cottagers feel discriminated against when it comes to voting in municipal elections. They would certainly support a change in the advance polls to the Saturday before Thanksgiving. The present date requires a special trip in November which is expensive and quite often hazardous because of bad weather. I think we should give the cottage owners an opportunity to vote in the municipal election.

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Swan: I moved that amendment two years ago and you people voted against it.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. Riddell: I will have to think that one over.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the municipal officials in small towns in Ontario do not favour extending the term of office to three years. Their belief and the belief of the people in those areas is that good councillors in local municipalities should expect their record of service to he assessed and approved every two years.

If one takes a look at the federal elections, one sees that over the last number of years there has been a federal election about every three years. If we deal with my own situation, I have run in elections practically every two years and it has not hurt me a bit. It has given the people of Huron-Middlesex an opportunity to show the confidence that they have in their elected member. They have had an opportunity to re-elect me every two years. It has not hurt me. It certainly has given the people of Huron-Middlesex an opportunity to put in the person they feel can best represent them here in the Legislature. I think the local municipal councillors should be assessed every two years as well. I have to speak for my municipal people and say that we support the retention of the two-year term.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the calm and sobriety of the evening to join in this debate of great repute. It is one of the most interesting debates I have seen in some time. We have had about one person from each party speak in favour of it, 45 from each speak against and we are going to pass the thing. All of Ontario should be here tonight to watch us in action.

I want to speak to all the renegades in each of the parties. I am proud of them all, but they are all dead wrong. Alone in the front row, I stand proudly to support this bill. Let it be noted that I am alone in the front row. This is the same kind of support I had at the convention.

Mr. Speaker: Now back to the bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Two years ago I introduced a resolution to this Legislature asking for the three-year term, among other things. The day before the debate on my bill, the minister announced that he was against three-year terms and wanted to keep the two-year term and then he did not show up for the debate on my bill. Tonight, again, the minister has not shown up to debate the bill. There may be a causal connection between my presence in the House on this sort of topic and his absence; I am not sure at all.

Rather than speaking for any length of time, I do have handouts of my speech from two years ago that I would be happy to spread around to the members. I wanted the member for Huron- Middlesex to know that I rise with piety to speak with no self-interest, because those rumours about me running for the mayoralty of Toronto, and therefore having a vested interest in the three-year term, are premature.

Mr. Riddell: I didn't have you in mind, Richard, when I was speaking.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you. You so seldom do.

I am sorry to see this debate fading into history, as it is, because I can no longer tell my version of the line that the member for Beaches-Woodbine gave about the learning process. I have learned that during the first eight months in municipal politics you learn the job, in the next eight months you do the job and in the final eight months you run for re-election. We will never be able to use that again with this being put into history, and that is one of my better lines. As most members know, there have not been many other very good ones.

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It went over to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). It went over just as well when I used it two years ago and it is improving with age.

Mr. Ruston: I can see why you lost that leadership.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Ah, cruel.

Mr. Speaker, to be as brief as possible, as I know you would like me to be, I rise in support of this motion because it is important that we recognize the importance of municipal elections, the need to get down to work and to handle the work of a municipal government for a longer period than that short two-year term, whether it is in Toronto, where the brutes who have been pushing this legislation through live, or whether it is people in rural Ontario, those people without power in this province, as we know, who have their work to do.

Accountability can be built into a three-year term. God knows, we believe it can be built into a four-year term.

Mr. Wildman: Well --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Except in the case of Algoma and one or two other ridings, which I will not add to the list.

I hope that in very short order this evening we will be able to deal with the amendment that I gather is coming forward and then pass this bill.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my feelings on behalf of Northumberland county council. Two thirds of my council support a two-year term. I was a trustee for 16 years; I had to run in an election every two years and I felt that a two-year term was adequate.

I rise to express my feelings on behalf of Northumberland county. They have sent me the odd letter. I have 15 municipalities, one of which has only 720 voters. I have four towns, the largest of which has a population of 12,000. Some of the four mayors in Northumberland county wish to have a two-year term, while others wish to have a three-year term.

I can sympathize with the desire of the larger cities for a three-year term so they can do some long-range planning, but I wish to express the feelings of my 15 municipalities, two thirds of whom support a two-year term, while the other third support a three-year term.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to Bill 10, which will move municipal elections from two-year to three-year terms.

Listening to the debate tonight, I can understand why the minister is not here. If he were here tonight, it probably would be a free vote and the bill would be lost. That is certain from the sentiments expressed by members tonight.

I do have some reservations about it. I believe it was a couple of years ago that the Liberal Party moved an amendment to a Toronto bill. We suggested at that time that it should be a three-year term. If I am not mistaken it was not supported by members of the New Democratic Party, the members to the left.

Although tonight there is a movement from a two-year term to a three-year term, I remember from my days on council that when we moved from a one-year term to a two-year term we heard the same story: you cannot be accountable to the ratepayers.

From my experience on sitting on council -- and I think it is still true today -- persons who are elected to municipal councils are perhaps more accountable to the ratepayers or the taxpayers than are the members of this Legislature, because the press is right there to report night by night almost everything that may go on at a council meeting. There are also the very active ratepayers' associations and other groups of concerned citizens within a community who keep councillors well on their toes on certain issues.

I suggest that moving from a two-year term to a three-term does not improve accountability one bit. I think it is there; it has been there all the time. I just cannot buy some of the comments of some of the members who live in that area. I live close to the American border and I do like some of their forms of municipal politics and the performance of the local members of their municipal governments.

9:50 p.m.

When we look at this bill, I feel there should be other areas of election reform to provide some form of protection to the ratepayers and taxpayers of municipalities. At one time my experience on council was that many of the things were discussed in full with the general public. We had meetings throughout the communities, putting forward our views on certain capital expenditures. Today I find this is one of the areas that is not taken note of by local councillors, and particularly by regional councillors.

I think the amount of debt of many municipalities today is questionable. Many of them, if they went back 30 years, would be in receivership today because of the debt that is there. I think it is time we started to change the whole system of election reform in the Municipal Act to say that there should be referendums on public expenditure. The taxpayers should have a right to say what the expenditure is going to be.

Councillors can be elected for one, two or three years but, as long as they are not accountable in this particular area, then many municipalities are going to run into financial difficulties. I think of a particular municipality in my riding, the city of Port Colborne, and its huge expenditures in the past two or three years. This year those expenditures are going to catch up with it and the ratepayers are not going to be too happy about that.

I note the bill says "municipalities and boards." When I look at the word "boards," I think of the regional municipality of Niagara where we have police commissions that are not elected. They damn well should be elected, because they are not accountable to anybody. The police budget is getting to the point where almost every taxpayer in the area is up in arms about it.

I suggest that all boards should be elected, and particularly that the regional chairmen in a number of municipalities should be elected. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) brought up a good point when she said these persons on regional or metropolitan councils should be elected for three-year terms and by the people in the area. This is an area of concern to me.

There are many questions that could be thrown into debate on the bill. I support the bill in principle but, as has been stated by a number of the members who have spoken on it and expressed their concerns, perhaps there should have been an opening left in the bill, on the basis of the size and population of the municipality, to let the municipalities decide whether they want to move from a two-year to a three-year term. I think that option should have been left for smaller municipalities, saying it is up to them to decide by plebiscite or referendum whether to move from a two-year term to a three-year term.

I believe this Legislature sometimes takes too much power away from local municipalities. It can provide an avenue so they can move in that direction. The town of Fort Erie has changed the ward system so that all members of council now will be elected at large. I received a letter from them, saying they want the same election privileges that are given to provincial members, because it is going to cost them additional money to be elected at large. I regret that they moved from the ward system to election at large. I do not think they should have moved in that direction.

It has been mentioned here tonight by other members, and I have to agree with them, that there should be some control on election expenses when candidates are running for election locally, particularly for the heads of municipalities. In my area I find a number of them are spending a large amount of money to be elected as mayors. I suggest a ceiling should be applied for municipal elections.

As was mentioned tonight, it cost one mayoral candidate $100,000 to get elected. That is almost up to what the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) spent, or beyond that. When any mayor spends $100,000 to get elected, there is some question or doubt about accountability. It just does not seem right to elect a person at a cost of $100,000 for a job that may pay $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000. It always leaves a question in my mind as to whether it is right, whether the ethics are there. I would support any amendment that would effect some control of municipal expenses at election time.

Perhaps elections in municipalities should be changed. Now the election is some time in November, I guess; maybe it should be changed to be in line with the fiscal year or the government budget in the spring of the year. Their year end is March 31 or something like that. I found it was a difficulty when I was a member of council, and I think it is more difficult for members today, to know just how much was coming back to the municipality in grants. It is always difficult.

At one time an elected person on council would have his municipal budget set by April of that year. In many municipalities the budget is not set until some time in June. I think the regional municipality of Niagara goes some time into July before it actually knows what the expenses are going to be and what the cost is to the ratepayers.

I suggest that there are many areas in which this bill could be improved and that we should improve the whole area of election reform and perhaps even areas of the Municipal Act. But I do support the bill in principle. With those comments, I think there should be a free vote tonight.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this item because I think that in every politician's career certain issues come along periodically which by their nature divide politicians, divide constituents, arouse passions and cause an avalanche of letters, phone calls and a natural outburst of feelings. This is not one of those issues, I have found.

I have not received a single letter on this issue. I am waiting for a phone call, a telegram -- anything. There is only thing I have received and I want to bring this to your attention, sir. C'est adressé au député de Cornwall du maire de Hearst, M. Fontaine. C'est très simple: "René, on compte sur vous ce soir."

I have great admiration for the members of this Legislature from the north. They pride themselves justifiably on their independence, their honesty, their forthright style, their willingness to stand up for the interests of the north and their constituents. I used to think that the liberal Conservative member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) was one of that breed. I talked to him tonight and he was candid, he was forthright, he was articulate; he said what he really felt about this issue.

Mr. Speaker: What does that have to do with the bill?

Mr. Samis: All right, to the bill. The Speaker gave the member for Cochrane North the opportunity to speak to the principle of the bill and unleash that torrent of passion and northern gut feeling and zeal so that his constituents would know that, even though he has a majority of only 200, he was in there fighting for them in Queen's Park. René, le télégramme est très simple: "On compte sur vous ce soir."

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) in his preliminary remarks really was referring more to matters such as beer in the ball park than he was to the matter of the two- or three-year term.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Beer in where?

Mr. Robinson: Where? Beer in the Cornwall ball park.

Mr. Samis: No, the Canadian National Exhibition.

Mr. Robinson: Oh, here. The member for Cornwall is taking a broader approach in his source of debate.

What we are trying to do tonight is to determine something that is measured in terms of the public interest and to determine where the public interest is best served as it relates to the length of time that municipal politicians serve between elections.

In Scarborough in the past three or four years there has been a wave of public interest in the length of municipal terms and that interest has gone hand in hand with a concern for reform in municipal campaign contribution accountability. It is fair to say that the community groups in Scarborough, many of them centred in my area and immediately north of it, are very greatly concerned and they want to have the opportunity to have accessibility to municipal politicians with at least the frequency they enjoy now. None the less, members of those same councils are much more interested in having the option or the ability to remain in office for three years.

10 p.m.

Members of council will offer the long-range planning arguments, will offer the cost of elections to the individual candidates without the benefit of any tax refund or any sort of a reform or receipts as we have provincially. They have to run campaigns in many major metropolitan municipalities at a price tag that is higher than many of the campaigns that were waged to become members of this provincial Legislature.

The mayoral campaigns in Metropolitan Toronto, across the boroughs, and the board of control campaigns may cost anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000. Candidates and members of municipal councils can successfully argue that to be put up against that sort of burden every two years is indeed onerous. However, on the other side of the balance, it is interesting to note in the longer perspective that municipal councils, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, have a major overhaul or a major rollover only about once every 10 years. There is some measure of tinkering at times. There are always a few changes, depending on retirements or depending on the particular nature of an issue in a particular location, but major reforms are really only accomplished about once every eight to 10 years.

With that in mind and, of course, bearing in mind the major costs accrued to the municipalities of running full elections every two years, I think it is fair to say that is also a cause for some concern. On balance, I am prepared to support the principle of the bill but I would have been happier had it come hand in hand with the municipal campaign contribution accountability reform.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, one cannot sit here for any period of time without feeling, as my colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) felt, an urge which one cannot fight against to get up and participate in this debate. I must say to my colleague that if he knows something about winning with large majorities, if he had the majority that the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) has and he had Fontaine looking over his shoulder as he has, he too would stay quiet in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the bill.

Mr. Roy: As have many of my colleagues, I have supported the principle of this bill for some time and I am surprised that the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), having shown some enthusiasm, which is unusual for members of the cabinet on that side, to make a decision and decide to proceed with a three-year term, would not be here to take some delight and some satisfaction in getting such widespread support and dissension from all sides of the House.

He should be here for another reason as well. That is to see that the parliamentary assistant who is shepherding this bill through the House does not have a trip planned down south after commenting so uncharitably about the performances of the members of Congress of the United States. The parliamentary assistant should know that if the constitution of the United States was easier to amend, the members of Congress would have amended their constitution some time ago so the two-year term would be increased to a three, four, and maybe six-year term as the members of the Senate have in Washington.

I understand some of my colleagues whose ridings contain smaller municipalities have talked about these municipalities being concerned about having the two-year term increased to a three-year term. When my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was talking about how popular he was and how the people in his riding enjoyed voting for him and returning him every two years, I thought he was mild and modest. That member is so popular that probably they would like to send him back every year if they had a chance.

I recall Darcy McKeough year after year refusing the request of the larger municipalities when they were asking to increase from a two-year to a three-year term. Of course, he had a very paternalistic approach to the process. He, as the godfather of all these municipalities, felt the democratic process would not be fair for them if we increased it to a three-year term. It was all right over at this level to have a four-year term, but municipal politicians must go back to the people every two years.

I find in some ways this discussion is somewhat paternalistic. As we look at these, what we call junior governments, it seems we take the approach that maybe these officials will not be following the democratic principle unless they go back to the people every two years. I say that in 1982 it is about time the term in most major municipalities be increased from two to three years. In fact, I would suggest it be increased even more than that, to possibly the same term as federal and provincial governments. Then federal, provincial and municipal would be at the same four-year term.

Some of my colleagues made some excellent points. Having accepted that we are increasing the term from two to three years there should be some thought given -- and I know it is not part of this bill -- to public funding of municipal elections. This would be just as we have at the provincial level and at the federal level. In most major municipalities the cost of a municipal election certainly is as much, if not more in some areas, than running an election in a federal or provincial riding. I think there should be no doubt that should take place.

I see my colleagues are in agreement. The members opposite should talk to their Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and convince him this is a good thing. As my friend from London states, he is sometimes not clued in and they should help him. The funds they have in excess in that Big Blue Machine slush fund could be transferred to some of these municipal politicians.

I think another amendment should be brought forward. I am sorry the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has left because when we are talking about responsibility and the election for members of local boards, I think it is high time as well that there be some flexibility in the remuneration for members of school boards. I think this clause that exists now that school board members are limited --

Mr. Cooke: That is the Education Act.

Mr. Roy: I know it is the Education Act; I know that. But still this should be brought in if we are talking about modernizing the process of municipal and local school board elections and about funding, and I am sure my colleagues over there can understand that.

The former leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), mentioned recently in Ottawa -- to his own detriment -- that we should establish party politics at the municipal and the board level.

Mr. Wildman: It is already there.

Mr. Roy: It may be in that member's area, it is not in ours.

This is the type of development which maybe attractive to some of my colleagues to the left, but most people would want to stay quiet with that issue. If the member for Ottawa Centre wants to start establishing party politics at the municipal level, this is an ingredient that is not necessary in the democratic process at that level. Even though I am hopelessly out of -- what do you call it? --

Mr. Speaker: You are straying from the bill.

Mr. Roy: -- straying from the bill -- the fact is that we feel some other important major amendments should be added to the three-year term to make the democratic process effective at the municipal and local school board level.

10:10 p.m.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the two-year or three-year term is the answer.

Mr. Nixon: Do you want one year?

Mr. Hennessy: Maybe for the member opposite it's six months.

When I look back over it, there have been a lot of good arguments here this evening with regard to the two-year and three-year term. I served a two-year term and a three-year term as a member of council.

Mr. Eakins: That was too long.

Mr. Hennessy: That is why they put me here. I did not think a three-year term accomplished very much. Some people run for council and look for a place to rest. During a three-year term, one does not see some people around until election year. That is the truth. So many members of council are carrying the majority of the work load in the council. By whose wisdom can we say that a three-year term will be more beneficial to the people?

Mr. Nixon: David Rotenberg, that's who.

Mr. Roy: Claude Bennett.

Mr. Hennessy: And the Pope.

Mr. Wildman: This has nothing to do with natural resources.

Mr. Hennessy: Do the members opposite want to speak or do they want me to speak? Just look at it, gentlemen -- and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). It is very difficult in the rural areas, where there are small municipalities of 600 or 700 people, to ask someone to serve for three years when there is difficulty getting people to serve for two years. I think to have people for three years --

Mr. Van Horne.: But on the other hand --

Mr. Hennessy: On the other hand -- does the member know why I said it? It is a good line. Even though he does not speak good English, I still know what he said.

Mr. Laughren: How are you voting?

Mr. Hennessy: I will have to make up my mind how I am going to vote. I guess the member opposite is not going to vote.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in this debate. I am in favour of the three-year term. I make the observation that we are going to have a free vote and perhaps the whip from the other side should get his members in or they might lose. I wondered why some of those back-benchers did not end up in the cabinet in the recent shuffle. I think the reason is that is where the real Tories are. The Premier (Mr. Davis) is afraid of those members back there.

I have received only one letter from my municipalities, but I think it shows that once the people in southwestern Ontario choose a member they stay with him for a great many years. I look at the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston), who has been in his constituency for many years, the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who is starting a third term now, and the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), who has been here for approximately 20 years. In his constituency, and I happened to meet these people because our ridings overlap to some extent, Mr. J. B. Wilson of South Dorchester has been a councillor for 33 years. The former member for Kent-Elgin was in office for 22 years.

There is one dissenter in my riding, however, and I would like to read his letter. This is from Mr. George Mickle, a former mayor of the town of Ridgetown. It is addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett):

"Dear Sir:

"Recently, I was told that legislation is being prepared to permit three-year terms for municipal officials. May I suggest that this be given very careful consideration by your officials and yourself? I think as far as large communities are concerned it has merit, but for small municipalities such as my town of Ridgetown, you will be creating problems.

"In a small community, it is usually very hard to get responsible citizens to accept municipal office because they have their own businesses to look after and cannot afford the time to act. One-year terms are all right. However, two-year terms are more difficult and three-year terms will be almost impossible. When we had one-year terms, we were able to persuade the office holder to go for a second term. Now, however, a three-year term will be almost impossible to get them to consider.

"Already, I had one of our best councillors tell me it would be necessary for him to give a lot of consideration before going to the electors for three years."

Our time is growing short and I believe we want to get along with things so I will not finish the letter, but I want to join with other members who expressed the opinion that perhaps what is best for Toronto and environs is not necessarily best for ridings some distance from Toronto.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of joining the debate this evening.

Mr. Nixon: What would Norris have said?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This is not a vote with regard to the sheep industry. Norris Whitney was an expert in that area and I have, as I am sure other members of this House have, a great deal of respect for my predecessor and for the tremendous contribution he made on behalf of the people of Ontario. I know the honourable member was not trying to provoke me, but I want to say I have a great deal of respect for the position of my predecessor in the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox.

I have a deep concern about the extension of the municipal term from two years to three years or longer. I have expressed that concern over the past decade, so my present position is not unclear to those who have noted the posture I have adopted over this long period.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How did this get through your caucus?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am certainly not going to be decoyed by the member for Scarborough West or the Liberal members.

Mr. Speaker: It came close.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Sometimes they come close, but never quite close enough. Nevertheless, the question is posed, how come? I was told on great authority that all members of this Legislature were firmly fixed in the belief that the members of municipal councils should enjoy a three-year term and not a two-year term.

If I am mistaken in that belief, I hope the members opposite will rise in response to the misconception I had in regard to the view I understood to be a unanimous view of all parties in this chamber. Working from the premise that all members of this chamber are firmly fixed in the view that there should be a three-year term as opposed to a two-year term, I nevertheless register my deep-seated concern. It flows from a long-standing conviction in the power and strength of local autonomy and self-determination at the grass-roots level.

I really believe that the public, the ordinary person in this great province of ours, should have the opportunity to reassess his representation at a regular interval and at a fairly frequent interval at the municipal level, not necessarily three years, possibly two years --

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Piché: Maybe one year.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: As my great colleague and compatriot the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) would say, even on a one-year term, they should be able to reassess how their local member is performing.

Mr. Piché: I first got elected to a one-year term and then I said, "If you like me, keep me; if not, throw me out."

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Notwithstanding the firm conviction of all members of this chamber to succumb to the pressures of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and other organizations to ensure a three-year term, I would ask them to register their independence and freedom of mind and freedom of spirit when this bill comes to a vote. I would hope there would be a serious reconsideration of the terms of this bill. I say that in all sincerity, of course, being a member who has a firm belief, a strong conviction and a keen spirit in our party system.

While I have that loyalty and conviction in the Conservative cause, nevertheless, I think the committee should very seriously consider the extension of the term from two years to three years.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise and give my view and the view of my riding and the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker that the two-year term and the one-year term have been the norm for many years, but with the advent of regional governments their responsibilities and their work loads have increased so much that it has eliminated many people from participating because of the fact that it takes time from their businesses. Their work load is almost as great as that of the members of the Legislature and almost as complicated.

Consequently, I feel a three-year term would be the most useful. It takes one year to get acquainted and one year to get ready for the next election. If members would like to have some continuity and responsibility and have those responsibilities carried out, I think the three-year term makes sense.

I support that concept and respect the councillors and the work load they have in working on behalf of the complicated system provided by this government of many years. We should be encouraging the people to vote and participate. I think a good example is this past election when more than 40 per cent of the people of Ontario did not vote. That does not say anything for the democratic system. We should be doing everything within our power to standardize and make sure our democratic system works and that we do get the right people for the positions.

I support the principle of the bill and hope that it may be carried out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I pass.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members of the House for the support of this bill.

Mr. Swart: Especially your own members.

Mr. Rotenberg: I will be very brief as I do want to take a few minutes to go into committee of the whole House and have this bill passed. I think it is important that municipal councillors know now what their term will be so they can plan for their elections in October. I hope we can pass this this evening.

The point the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) is raising is clearly out of order, but if she wishes to go into committee of the whole House and have that ruling, I certainly would not object. But I do want to say to her and to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who first raised this matter of election expenses -- and I do welcome him as the new critic to this ministry -- it is the intention of the government and this ministry in this spring session to bring in a further bill on municipal elections. It is the intention -- I used those words advisedly because it is an intention, not binding -- that this bill will have something in it dealing with election expenses. That will come later and that is the time to debate it.

Again I thank all members for the support of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Rotenberg: We can do committee in two minutes.

Mr. Speaker: No, no, no.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregory moves the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Swart has a late show tonight with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).

HOME HEATING COSTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this debate is taking place tonight because there is a matter of real principle involved. That principle is the abdication by the minister of his responsibility to consumers when he refused to answer my question yesterday for intervention by him on the massive increase in the residential gas rate.

I pointed out that the Ontario Energy Board had allowed increases in the last few months which would raise average home heating costs in Niagara and Toronto -- in fact, in most of Ontario -- from $657 last year to $900 this year. I also pointed out to the minister that this massive increase was not due solely to the federal energy program. Rather, it was because distributing companies such as Consumers' Gas were allowed a 65 per cent markup on the pass-through of wholesale costs and federal taxes. That is roughly four times the amount ever allowed before.

Profits of Consumers' Gas last year went up by 19 per cent to $107 million and the increases just granted allow another estimated $77 million this year to the firm. Last year the Ontario Energy Board underestimated by $4 million the profit that Consumers' would make.

In the question period yesterday I asked the minister to make an appeal against the OEB decision, as permitted under section 33 of the Ontario Energy Board Act. Its decision was made on February 26. There are 28 days in which anyone can appeal to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. As minister responsible for consumer protection, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) to do just that with the massive prima facie evidence which exists that price gouging is taking place in home heating.

10:30 p.m.

What do the terms of reference mean to the minister? I looked up in the government phone book the responsibilities of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it says this: "The purpose of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is to ensure a fair, safe and honest marketplace." I emphasize "fair." "To achieve this, the ministry regulates a wide variety of businesses through its licensing, registration and inspection, and is involved in consumer education and protection." I emphasize "protection."

Do not tell me that the Ontario Energy Board hearings were fair or arrived at a fair decision. The Ontario Energy Board does investigate on its own, but it sits primarily as a court to make a decision on the evidence presented. There is great need for the consumer side to be forcefully and fully put.

Does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations know how well the consumer side was put at that hearing which decided on a rate from September 8 to October 15 and was finalized on February 26 of this year? On the one side was this huge monopoly, Consumers' Gas, with hordes of experts. In fact, they called 20 witnesses during the 19 hearing days. On the other side was the Industrial Gas Users Association which had one witness. One person was there from the manufacturers of heat pumps. The counsel for the Urban Development Institute had a watching brief and no one was there representing the consumer.

It really is a case of an elephant dancing among the chickens and saying, "Everyone for himself." That is not good enough. The minister's predecessor in consumer protection opted out. This debate tonight is my attempt to tell the minister the people of this province are bitterly opposed to that opting out. They want him to live up to his obligation.

Of course, what we really need is a public advocate in this province, as they have in Massachusetts, who will take the consumer's side at Ontario Energy Board hearings and when Bell Canada is being heard at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and for Ontario Hydro as well.

As the minister knows, I submitted a private member's bill just yesterday to the Ontario Legislature. I hope he will support it when it comes around so we can have some real protection for consumers. That cannot do anything for this problem at the present time.

The minister can do two things. I ask him to reconsider and do them. He can come to this House on Thursday and answer my question. Secondly, he can go for the appeal on behalf of the hard-pressed consumers who are paying massive heating bills in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to be in attendance for this important debate. I happen to have a great deal of respect for the member's legitimate concern for the consumers of this province and I hope he shares the belief that I have that same interest in the consumers in this province. Were he to say he did not, I would lose a lot of confidence and trust in him.

Having read the standing committee's estimates debates, I know from his remarks in those estimates that he sees himself as a great free-enterpriser. I was really impressed to see that he saw himself as the guardian of the bastion of free enterprise in those estimates debates. I think that is a tribute to him.

I think he has accurately recorded that there was a long series of public hearings, a public process, I might add, at which there were interventions from the public, not as many as he would like and nor indeed was he there. As he knows, there was an interim report in November and the final report in February.

When he asked me the question, I thought he was seriously interested in the answer. Therefore, I redirected the question to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) who has now sent the member a comprehensive and explicit response. I will not take the time to read that because I think he would not wish me to do so.

In summary, let me make a few points. He knows well that a large portion of the costs that judgement of the OEB recorded were related to capital expenditures involved in storage and distribution. He also knows that these increased capital costs resulted largely from the unprecedented demand the gas industry has been faced with in regard to government-induced off-oil, and quite properly so. He would not argue that and neither would I. But the reality is that to get ready for that big expansion of service, certain capital costs are necessary.

I think the member should also know, and I am sure he does, that since 1973, when the federal and Alberta governments got involved in this whole issue of gas, about 73 to 78 per cent of the costs, by and large, have been due directly to the intervention of the federal and Alberta governments. He also knows that the Ontario Energy Board said in its decision that they were trying to establish a 16.25 per cent rate of return on common equity and a 13 per cent overall return on the total capital expenditure, not an unreasonable return even for a Socialist. I have heard many Socialists say that this is not an unreasonable rate of return, so I do not think the member can really argue with that. Having said that, let us not pretend that any of us like to have an increase, but at least we have to understand that the reasons for the increase were legitimate.

But to be particularly precise, what the member asked me to do, I would have to submit, does give me some problems. First of all, it gives me some problems because the Consumer Protection Act --

Mr. Swart: Sure, because Darcy McKeough is on the side of the gas company.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just hang on for a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The Consumer Protection Act, clause 2, specifically prohibits the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations from making any intervention with respect to costs incurred in distribution and storage and I do not really believe that the member intended to ask this minister to act in any inappropriate way, nor would the public expect him to ask me to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.