Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

NEWSPAPER COLUMN

Mr. Rollins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like to make comment on an article in the Sun newspaper of Wednesday, June 13, written by one Gary Dunford under the heading “Everybody out on the Lawn,” making reference to all members and to the staff of this Legislature and to the manner in which it has been published.

With your permission, could I read it into the record for further comment?

“Everybody out on the Lawn!

“They say Jack Stokes -- the Speaker at the Legislature -- would do anything to wear his robes of office. When Stokes is wrapped in the intimidating cloak of not-too-many-colours, he is not as mortal men. He is for the ages, eternal.

“Perhaps it was in just such a moment that the idea came to him that he should be recorded, for history, surrounded by a cast of thousands.

“That’s why he’s invited everyone who works at Queen’s Park -- including the hapless hacks and flacks -- to gather on the lawn tomorrow to have their picture taken for a provincial brochure.

“They hope to have every pig who feeds at the public trough present, perhaps as many as one thousand oinkers.

“There is no truth to the rumour the brochure is for the Ontario Pork Council.”

Mr. Speaker, during my term as an elected member of this Legislature, I cannot recall anything so disgraceful and so uncomplimentary to the elected body of this House and to you, your honour, as Speaker of the House and to the people who are dedicated to serving the people of the province of Ontario. I would hope the proper procedure for this situation would be handled in a manner such that it will not occur again.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SPECIAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am placing before this assembly the report of Mr. Mendel Green, QC, which resulted from his review of existing legislation and practices relevant to the office of the special examiner within the judicial district of York. Special examiners conduct certain court-related procedures such as examinations for discovery, cross-examinations on affidavits and examinations of judgement debtors and prepare transcripts of these proceedings.

As a result of a number of concerns expressed about the operation of the offices of special examiners within the judicial district of York, I appointed Mr. Green last October to conduct a full review and assessment of existing legislation and practices relevant to the operation of this part of the litigation process.

Mr. Green concludes that the legal profession is, for the present time, adequately served by the current four special examiners in the judicial district of York. He further concludes on the basis of facts and figures supplied to him by the special examiners and the reporters, that the reporters are being adequately compensated for their efforts. He recommends that the terms of relations between special examiners and freelance reporters be left to the respective parties to negotiate without any government attempt to legislate salaries.

Based on observations with respect to the operation of the offices and on interviews with members of the legal community active in this area, Mr. Green makes a number of specific recommendations for change in the existing system. Some of the proposed changes would require legislation in the form of amendments to the Judicature Act, some could be achieved through amendments to the rules of practice made by the rules committee under the Judicature Act and some could be achieved administratively.

In the latter category, for instance, is the recommendation that financial information from the special examiners’ offices be filed annually with the inspector of legal offices and that auditing procedures be undertaken with respect to the billing procedures and other requirements of the tariff in relation to the operation of individual offices. Action has already been taken with respect to this recommendation. Further action of a non- legislative nature will be undertaken over the next few month. Appropriate legislative responses will be prepared for the fall sitting of the assembly.

REPORT ON SALE OF GOODS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In a few moments I will be tabling the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report on the sale of goods. This three-volume report represents the most ambitious attempt in the Commonwealth to revise the law of sale of goods since the last century. Ontario’s Sale Of Goods Act is based on a British statute dating from 1893. Commercial practices have changed dramatically since the 19th century, yet the law has not changed to keep abreast of these developments.

Lawyers practising in the area of commercial law have long recognized the need for reform. This part of the law has frequently been seen as outmoded, inadequate and irrelevant, out of touch with both commercial reality and current legal thinking. Ten years ago the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association endorsed a report recommending that article two of the American uniform commercial code dealing with sales law should be enacted in this province. The bar association recommended this for two reasons: first, in order to revise the current law in the many areas where it is seen to be inadequate. Second, in order to make our sales law uniform with that of the United States, in view of the fact the USA is Canada’s closest trading partner.

This recommendation led my predecessor, the Honourable Arthur Wishart, to ask the commission to study the sale of goods. During its research project, the commission has conducted extensive comparative legal research with the assistance of a team of Canadian legal experts as well as empirical studies, conducted with the co-operation of the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, into contemporary selling and purchasing practices, particularly at the manufacturers’ level.

The report on the sale of goods represents a comprehensive and meticulous consideration of the issues. The commission makes over 250 recommendations which constitute a root and branch reform of sales law, including amendments or repeals of other related statutes. The commission’s general purpose was to revise, reform and modernize the law governing the sale of goods, promote fair dealing, and assist the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties.

The report analyses every aspect of the sale of goods. It recommends that the revised statute apply by analogy to near sale transactions such as contracts for lease of goods or contracts for labour and materials.

The proposals made by the commission would change the present law in many respects. However, they would not radically alter current relationships between buyer and seller. Many of the commission’s proposals are based on empirical evidence that there is a wide gulf between the existing law and what many businessmen believe the law to be. Many of the changes simply bring the law in line with current business practices.

Before I highlight some of the major features of the report, I should make it clear that the Sale of Goods Act is general legislation. It makes no special provision for consumers. In Ontario, we already have consumer-oriented legislation, such as the Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The report I am tabling today assumes that these statutes will remain and does not contain special rules governing consumer sales.

In order to facilitate discussion, the commission has drafted a bill. This bill is strongly influenced by article two of the American uniform commercial code, but is not a copy of it. The draft bill, like the current Sale of Goods Act, allows most matters to be freely bargained by the parties. In general, once a contract is made, the provisions of the statute apply only in the absence of a specific term in the contract.

One major innovation in the draft bill is a provision empowering a court to review any contract before it in order to determine if the contract is unconscionable. If the court finds that it is unconscionable, the court may refuse to enforce part or all of the contract, rescind the contract or change the contract so as to avoid any unconscionable result. The draft bill also imposes a duty on the parties to act in good faith in the performance of the contract. These two provisions cannot be excluded by agreement The court then will have explicit powers to police unfair bargains and to impose minimum standards on the parties.

The draft bill expands the remedies available to the parties if there is a breach of contract. An important innovation is the statutory recognition of a long-standing business practice which gives the parties an opportunity to cure, or demand the curing of, most defects within a reasonable time if it would not unreasonably prejudice the other party.

Liability to an ultimate buyer is imposed upon manufacturers or distributors of goods who make representations or promises in any form relating to goods that are the subject of a contract of sale, if the representations tend to make buyers rely on them in deciding to make purchases. In many cases, an ultimate buyer would be able to take action against a manufacturer or distributor, even though there is no contractual relationship between the parties. The commission also includes in the draft bill for the purposes of discussion, a provision which would allow an ultimate buyer to take action against a manufacturer, distributor or any other prior seller for breach of warranties which were extended to the immediate buyer.

Finally, the bill proposes to remove many of the technical problems which have led to arbitrary results and have made the law difficult to understand and apply. For example, the bill abolishes the significant differences between conditions and warranties, between void and voidable titles and between firm offers with and without consideration. The commission will continue its work in the commercial law area with separate projects on products liability and the general law of contract.

The government intends to give careful consideration to the report. I will be discussing the report with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). We would welcome any comments or suggestions which would assist us in evaluating the many recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in this very significant study on the sale of goods.

The adoption of the draft bill would result in a legal regime more generally compatible in its operation with that of the United States than our current law. It would thus tend to facilitate US-Ontario trade, but interprovincial sales are also vitally important to Ontario’s economy. Since uniformity of law is vitally important for those whose commercial activities extend across Canada, the Ontario Law Reform Commission’s report will be referred to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. We anticipate that the conference will be studying the commission’s draft bill with a view to drafting uniform legislation for enactment across Canada.

I regard law reform in this area as being both necessary and vitally important. I welcome the report of the law reform commission and look forward to receiving the comments of the legal profession, the business community and the public upon it.

EMISSIONS OF TRITIUM

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a Canadian Press article as reported in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. The article in question refers to an Ontario Hydro safety report about a valve failure at its Rolphton nuclear power generating plant and a report that there was tritium in the turbine room. Because of the unanswered questions raised by the article, I asked Ontario Hydro to comment on the story so I could place it in proper context.

First, on the steam generator leaks in January 1978: January 26, 1978, higher-than-normal levels of tritium were discovered in the turbine room of the station and a station alert was called. The purpose of the alert was to account for personnel and to declare the turbine room off limits to non-essential personnel until the source of tritium had been discovered and the appropriate corrective action taken. Following the alert, the station reactor was shut down and the level of tritium returned to normal within 40 minutes.

[2:15]

The cause of the higher levels of tritium was a leak in the tube in the steam-generating system, which was repaired during the period of the shutdown. The amount of tritium released in the station’s effluents as a result of the tube leakage was less than one per cent of the limits set by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

With regard to the valve failure in September 1978, during a regular semi-annual test of the station’s emergency light-water injection system, one of the station’s two emergency core-cooling systems, Ontario Hydro discovered that a pin forming part of the operating mechanism of an isolating valve was broken and that the valve was partially closed, even though there was no indication that this was the case. The valve is normally in an open position while the station reactor is at high power and in a closed position when the station reactor is in a cooled, shutdown stage. If the valve is in a closed position when the station reactor is still at high power, the emergency light-water injection would not be available in the event of loss of the normal fuel-cooling system. It is not possible to determine when the pin broke or how long, if at all, the valve was in a partially closed position while the reactor was operating at high power.

Ontario Hydro tested this system in early 1978 and found no problems. However, for whatever period the pin was broken, the station’s other emergency core-cooling system was available to provide emergency cooling, if it had been needed. Repairs have been made and new procedures have been instituted to inhibit similar problems in the future and to ensure their prompt detection, if they do occur.

On the steam generator and fuel channel closure plug leaks in March 1979: In September 1978 slightly higher-than-normal levels of tritium were discovered in the station’s feed-water system. Upon subsequent investigation, Ontario Hydro discovered that this was caused by a small leak in the station’s steam generator. As the leak did not constitute a hazard or cause the level of tritium in the stations effluents to exceed one per cent of the limits set by the control board, Ontario Hydro, with the concurrence of the control board, decided to continue operating the station until its next regularly scheduled maintenance shutdown.

In March 1979, heavy water began leaking from a fuel channel closure plug. All attempts to stop the leak while the station was operating were unsuccessful. Although the leak did not constitute a hazard and Ontario Hydro was able to recover and reuse the heavy water, Hydro decided to advance the date of its next regularly scheduled maintenance shutdown by about three weeks. During this shutdown, Ontario Hydro repaired the leak and carried out its planned maintenance activities, which included inspection and repair of the leak in the steam generator which had been discovered in September 1978.

As members will recall, on June 11 I made a statement in this House concerning emissions of tritium from Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations. Attached to that statement was a table outlining the emissions of tritium in the airborne and water effluents of Rolphton since 1973. Members will note that at no time during the period 1973 to date did the level of the emissions reach one per cent of the limits set by the control board.

I will be speaking later this evening on other matters involving the Rolphton plant, but I think I should place in the proper context the article which appeared in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. S. Smith: I would direct the question to the Minister of the Environment following up on the discussion regarding 2,4-D spraying. Is the minister aware that in Halton the spraying of school yards with 2,4-D is continuing because Halton’s education director feels this is not a matter for local autonomy? I would read to the minister a quote from the Burlington edition of the Hamilton Spectator. It says that “he would not order a stop of the program unless the Environment Ministry advises against it. ‘It is a matter of science and I am no scientist. It is their decision; it is not for me to rule it in or out.’”

Therefore, in view of the fact that local school boards clearly do not feel they have the expertise to make these decisions, will the minister now change his rather indefensible position and agree to give advice from the ministry as to whether 2,4-D spraying should or should not be continued? At the very least, would he accept the suggestion of my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) that no spraying occur when children are present in the school?

Mr. Swart: It’s nice to see you following our leader.

Mr. Peterson: None of you guys follow him.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I guess I pre-empted the Leader of the Opposition on this occasion. I have already had a letter drafted, which I believe is in the mails, to all of the school boards of Ontario, not telling them they cannot use it, but enclosing and outlining to them the guidelines for the proper application of 2,4-D.

Since the honourable member also did a little research since the last day, perhaps I might read into the record a little research we did. I will be glad to supply the date. It says: “The Liberal Party is firmly committed to the principle of local autonomy. Municipalities should play a meaningful role in governing themselves.”

Mr. Breithaupt: What’s that got to do with the question?

Mr. Peterson: What has spraying kids got to do with that answer?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think that has a great deal to do with what we are talking about.

Mr. Peterson: You are deteriorating.

Mr. Speaker: Can we please have some order? I cannot hear the answer.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I am being provocative. I have to agree with whomever said that. I cannot argue with that. Now that I know the Liberal Party is so committed to local autonomy, I hope it will follow up on that and put its money where its mouth is, or the reverse -- whichever.

As I said yesterday, there is no doubt about this --

Mr. Ruston: The minister is in a bad way and he is trying to squirm out of it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is the honourable member’s opinion; I do not share it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they are interested in the reply or not. I am having a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. Kerrio: I think the minister should sit down and start over again.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the honourable member will shut up, I will be glad to say something. Is the member for Niagara Falls ready to be quiet and listen?

Mr. Kerrio: For the first time in my life.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Thank you. That is a pleasure. May I then finish the response?

As I said the day before yesterday in the House, having arranged this matter at the council meeting in Kelowna, we do know that every single province agrees with the use of 2,4-D. I think that is known and agreed upon by the scientific minds of Canada.

I think we also know the material must be applied properly. The Ministry of the Environment has established some very strong guidelines for the proper application of 2,4-D. Once that is done and well known and well published, which it is, then to ask for a banning of a material on a very small area where children would be exposed is not a very logical position to take.

Mr. Sweeney: Only while the kids are there.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Of course, that is part of the guidelines. The member for Kitchener--Wilmot really should know that.

Mr. Sweeney: That’s all we are asking for.

Hon Mr. Parrott: That is part of the guidelines. The commitment I made to this House and which I want to restate is that if there is a violation of the guidelines and an injury either to persons or to foliage results from the poor application of the material, it is our responsibility, which we will gladly take, to enforce the guidelines and to take the necessary court action to prosecute.

Mr. Wildman: Didn’t you ever hear of preventive care?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Our responsibility on this issue is very clear to me. We have established the safety on a national basis; we have established the guidelines for its proper application; we have accepted the responsibility for any violations to those guidelines.

Mr. S. Smith: That is a long answer.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think I have that privilege. Since it is reasonably well known that the major area of concern would be contact with small children, if we banned it only on the schoolyards and did not ban it in city parks and for home use, I think we would really have banned only a very small portion of it and not the effective portion of it.

I have tried to indicate as strongly as I could that the guidelines should be followed. It is important that they are. If they aren’t, obviously people are going to suffer either from allergies or from direct contact. That is just not the way it should be applied.

I hope the people will take the opportunity to read our guidelines and I am glad the issue was raised for that very reason. It gives us a chance to give publicity to the guidelines we have established for the safety of citizens, including farmers who apply such vast quantities of it, because all of our people should know how to apply and use any chemical, particularly in the instance of 2,4-Il

Mr. S. Smith: That was a very long answer, good heavens. By way of supplementary: I take it the minister has finally climbed part way down from his so-called municipal autonomy horse --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, it’s yours not mine.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and has accepted that even if 2,4-D is not a proved carcinogen, even if he is right that it isn’t -- and I tend to agree it is not a proved carcinogen -- the minister surely understands it might be a health hazard and spraying dandelions in the presence of children is not reasonable.

Given the fact the Halton school board director, who seems to be a fairly well-known individual, says he wants guidance from the ministry -- not just guidelines, he wants a rule from the ministry -- why doesn’t the minister simply make a rule very clearly that 2,4-13 should not be used when children are in the school?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That rule is made.

Mr. S. Smith: Surely nothing could be simpler than that? Why is the minister reading out statements about municipal autonomy and other nonsense of that kind?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me try to put it in the simplest of language for the leader of the Liberal Party. The rule he asked for has been made; it is called a guideline. Let me put it very simply: if those who are responsible for spraying and applying break the rule, they will be prosecuted.

Mr. Wildman: And people will get sick.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, through you to the leader of the Liberal Party --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- I am trying to respond in kind. The letter has gone to the boards.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Be proud of the fact you changed your mind, Harry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, if I had to change my mind to agree with the leader of the Liberal Party, I know I would be wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister now says if the guidelines for spraying 2,4-D in schoolyards are broken the ministry will prosecute, can the minister explain why there has apparently been no action at all against the Northumberland and Newcastle school boards, despite the fact there was clear evidence they were violating the guidelines early in June by spraying schoolyards in that part of the province? If the ministry did not issue a stop order and did not launch a prosecution against the spraying of schoolyards in that particular case, what confidence can we have in this House that the ministry is going to launch such prosecutions if there are future violations?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When this question was raised the other day the member suggested he had the evidence for us, and I am still waiting to receive it. Apparently, there has been no substantiation of his research department that 20 children were seriously ill as a result of spraying. If there is substantiation, he certainly hasn’t done us the courtesy of sending it over.

We are aware of some contact allergies, but not of the charges the member raised the other day. I guess I have to ask: Is the member going to furnish us with that information, or was it just a misleading piece of information he put on the record of the House?

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask if the minister is aware that when the original question was asked, I asked a supplementary concerning an association between 2,4-D and Reyes syndrome? If 2,4-D is not carcinogenic and is not harmful in any effect, has the minister checked on the emulsifier that is used? Apparently, a team of doctors in Halifax back in 1976 indicated there could be an association between Reyes syndrome and the emulsifier used to spray the chemical.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I did have that the other day when the question was asked, Mr. Speaker, and I neglected at that time to answer the second portion of the question asked of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

The information I have here is as follows: There is no relationship between the herbicide 2,4-D and Reyes syndrome. A careful review of the scientific literature provides no basis or indication that 2,4-D is linked to Reyes syndrome.

Neither the member nor myself are scientists, able to judge that I have to depend on the best advice that I can get from my advisory committee. Therefore, I reply in that way.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister: Would he explain if the guidelines, or his letter explains to the board that contact with the pesticide shortly after an application could be hazardous to children? Is this explained either in his letter or the guidelines, or both?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I should give the member who asked that question credit for this suggestion. He approached me in the House on Tuesday last and asked if it wouldn’t be wise to send out a fact sheet. It was his suggestion that brought that forward and resulted in the action we took.

I’ll be glad to send the member -- because I know of his genuine interest -- the fact sheet and a copy of the letter we have sent to the board. I think he’ll find it will be quite self-explanatory and explained in detail. Again, I want to thank the member for making that suggestion last Tuesday.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister just imputed motives and also suggested that information I had given this Legislature was misleading. I ask him to withdraw those statements.

Early in June I suggested the spraying guidelines were being violated because spraying was taking place in winds of more than seven miles an hour -- in fact, in 25-mile-an hour winds -- and while children were present in the schoolyard. If the minister thinks that information is misleading, it seems to me he should bring clear evidence into the House or else launch a prosecution in that case, since he’s promised to take vigorous action.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, that wasn’t the reference. The reference was to the 20 children who were ill. We readily admit the winds on that day were above the guideline figures, but the point is this --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you prosecuting?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You can’t violate on spraying if you spray at a time when the winds are about 15 miles per hour, Mr. Speaker. You have to collect the evidence to prove harm resulted because of spraying in conditions such as those indicated.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don’t you enforce the law?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is no law that says you can’t spray when the winds are 15 miles an hour --

Mr. Wildman: You’re saying people have to get sick before you can prosecute.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- but if you do spray and you have broken the guidelines there is prima facie evidence to suggest that you applied the spray improperly.

Mr. Cassidy: The guidelines are a dead letter then.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: And it’s on the production of evidence that harm resulted and that the wind factor was above the guidelines --

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, for heaven’s sake. It might take 20 years to develop a cancer.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- that we take the person to court, and we’ll do so. In this instance --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has surely gone far astray of what the other member alleged to have been a point of privilege.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s also given two separate stories.

FLUORIDE POISONING

Mr. S. Smith: Another question to the Minister of the Environment on the subject of fluoride poisoning on Cornwall Island. Is the minister able to table in this House the results of testing done at the two stations on the mainland, as well as the four stations on Cornwall Island, regarding the amount of fluoride which is being transmitted there because of the emissions from Reynolds Aluminium Company of Canada Limited?

Can he confirm that these have been in excess of the Ontario standards for some time, including some of the stations on the mainland? Has he any test results with regard to the children living in Cornwall and area on the mainland, to see whether they have been exposed to excessively high fluoride concentrations and whether there are effects on their teeth? Such has now been reported in the Indian band, which I understand is a federal matter.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think most of this falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government. As a matter of fact I know that Environment Canada is now investigating, and since the first ill effects were seen on the reserve, of course that too will be dealt with by the federal government.

With reference to the information that might be pertinent to the town of Cornwall, either through the results obtained from Environment Canada or from our own monitoring stations, we will in due course provide that information.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not aware, as I am, of the fact that his own stations have been indicating high levels above provincial guidelines for some time now. What I want to know is, in view of these high levels why has the minister not informed himself of these matters and why have he or his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) not undertaken tests of the children in the Cornwall area to find out whether they might be suffering some of the same early symptoms of excessive fluoride as Indian children on the island are apparently already suffering? Accepting that the Indian children at the moment are a federal responsibility, surely the minister recognizes his responsibility for children on the mainland?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It wasn’t a matter of whether or not I was informed, Mr. Speaker, as the member suggested, it was a matter of whether I had that information in the form that I could relate to the leader today. I don’t. We’ve asked for that information, and as I said it will be forthcoming in the near future; but I don’t have that information here today.

Mr. Samis: Would the minister report to the House what representation he’s made to the federal authorities prior to and since the publication of the alarming reports by Dr. Krook and Dr. Burns this week, and Drs. Cornow and Conibear last year. This problem is certainly not an obviously new problem in the Cornwall area?

Secondly, could he also explain, or attempt to explain, the vast difference in tolerable emission levels between New York state and Ontario? I believe the ratio was 13 to one according to the Toronto Star yesterday. Could he explain how two jurisdictions, side by side, can have such a tremendous difference in their tolerance levels?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Certainly the staffs of our ministry and Environment Canada have been in touch on this, both prior to the latest press reports on it and now. I can only say, as I did to the Leader of the Liberal Party, that we will be prepared to include all of that in the report I’ve asked for and which will be forthcoming. I don’t have it today, but I’ll include the reply to the question the member has asked at the time I provide an overall response.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: Since it’s obvious the ministry has not requested any testing of the children, will the ministry request that the Ministry of Health do the testing when the information to which the minister alluded has been collected?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think the first part of that question is correct. I’ve asked for a report, but I’m not prepared, prior to having all of that on my desk, to assume that any of the statements today were correct or incorrect. I frankly do not know at this moment in time, personally, all that we have done. I know there has been a lot of contact between staff. I want to know how much action that has resulted in and what our responsibilities are. That will be forthcoming shortly.

Having said that, there is nothing more I can say, Mr. Speaker, but to undertake to report back in the detail for which the members are asking. I shall be happy to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister doesn’t know, obviously.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism about the government’s purchasing policy.

Is the minister aware there is a wholly-Canadian company called Microfilm Recording Company Limited, which makes 6,000 microfiche readers per year here in Toronto which are cheaper and equivalent in quality to the multinational competitor’s but has been able to sell to only three ministries in the government of Ontario, and that only after complaining to the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself? Can the minister say why the government continues to buy from multinationals like Kodak in procuring its microfiche readers rather than supporting a Canadian company with an equivalent and cheaper product?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course as I would have hoped we somewhat agreed last week when the member raised a similar issue, it would probably be productive of better discussion on the floor of this House if the member might provide me with the particular cases he wants to question us about and I’ll contact the ministry involved and provide him with all the details he’d like. If he provides me with the details of the three contracts we’re talking about, or those he says have been refused, I’ll be pleased to provide that information to him. There are no secrets with us.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that this particular company, Microfilm Recording, has been able to get itself on the tenders lists of only two ministries in the government and therefore have automatic consideration for purchases of these readers from only those two particular ministries? Isn’t that a crucial step in allowing a Canadian company with a high technology product to gain access to business from the government of Ontario? What steps will the government take to make sure that Canadian companies like this one can in fact get their products on the list so that they will be automatically considered when the government’s doing its buying?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the member that for me to stand here and pretend that every product made in this province automatically qualifies and fits the equipment being used by every ministry would be foolish of me. Obviously, different ministries have over the years developed needs for different products and different processes. I would hope that over a period of time, as equipment comes up to be repurchased and remodelled, we might be able to develop some standard usages which will allow all companies to participate in our programs.

I would point out to the leader of the third party that I have recently had occasion to correspond with my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) -- partly at the request of that company I might add

-- and as a result I believe the member will now find that Management Board is specifying on its tender calls that Canadian companies supplying microfiche are the companies which will get first and primary opportunity to bid. I’ll be pleased to get that updated information and provide it to the member tomorrow morning.

I really have to repeat the specific point that if the member wants to discuss any specific purchasing policy or contract, in order for this conversation to be meaningful he might provide me with those details and tomorrow, if possible, I’ll provide the details I’m referring to.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: In regard to government purchasing, why does the minister not guarantee a percentage of government purchasing to the small-business sector? Is it because, unlike his federal counterpart, he does not have a definition for the small business sector? Why does he not guarantee small business operators a percentage of government purchasing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the member will find that the percentage of small-business purchases by this government far exceeds the percentage that any other government has.

Mr. S. Smith: Table it. You don’t know what your percentage is.

Mr. Eakins: You don’t even have a definition.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Victoria-Haliburton suggests we don’t even have a definition, and I’m happy to make him a deal: If he provides me with whatever definition he wants to use for small businesses, I’ll bet him he will find that, under whatever definitions he wants to draw, this government still far outstrips any other government in its direct purchasing from small business.

Mr. S. Smith: Table it in this session.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Accept the challenge, draw up the definitions and we’ll see who’s right.

Mr. Eakins: I will be tabling my definition this afternoon. You table yours.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: While we welcome the evidence of some movement from the Minister of Industry and Tourism, we’re concerned over the fact that it only seems to come when we raise questions here in the Legislature and not as an automatic result of the carrying through of the policy to buy Canadian by the government.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cassidy: I’d like to ask the minister specifically whether he’s aware that in the case of this product the government of Ontario specifications name multinational companies’ products, Bell and Howell or equivalent or Kodak or equivalent? Will the minister undertake that all such specifications, which effectively prejudice the final purchase in favour of a foreign-manufactured product, be removed from the specifications that are issued by the government of Ontario so that Canadian companies will not be discriminated against?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have nothing to add to the answers I’ve previously given.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A lot of people work for Kodak in my riding.

Mr. Cassidy: Kodak imports all of those products.

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Energy. In the light of the growing risk of oil shortages right here in this province, can the minister say when the government intends to implement that 1977 election promise that the government made for $100 million worth of low interest loans for home insulation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been answered by at least one of my predecessors, as well as by me.

An hon. member: Let’s hear today’s version.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I recall, the last time I indicated that since the government of Canada had introduced its Canadian Home Insulation Program we felt there was not a need to go ahead with the suggestion as far as the government was concerned. I think I also indicated that one or two of the companies distributing gas in Ontario had a pilot project of loans which had not been very successful.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that if Ontario were to provide a lead in terms of making sure this program extended to every household for reinsulation of homes across the province it could save us about 266 million gallons of heating oil a year, it could create about 6,000 jobs in Ontario and it would help the average home owner to save more than $200 on his or her fuel bill every year? Isn’t it better to have that kind of program than for the government to sit back and do nothing about conserving energy through insulation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We are not doing nothing about encouraging the conservation of energy. As a matter of fact, we were the first to take steps by removing the provincial sales tax on insulating materials and allied products. From what the honourable member has just said, it must be self-evident to anybody that under some conditions it is a great economic advantage to them to add insulation or to reinsulate -- to fit insulation retroactively -- but that does not apply in all cases. I think the approach we are taking certainly seems to be having benefits and effects, at least from what I have read about the sales of insulation.

Mr. J. Reed: If the ministry is as concerned about the conservation of energy as the minister appears to imply, is there any substance to the recent report of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, which suggests the conservation effort by Ontario Hydro, the “turnoff” campaign, will be downplayed from now on?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not that I’m aware of, although it may well be there were some comments about the program which were not entirely complimentary, not about the purpose but about the approach or some of the approaches.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You object to some of the performances, Julian?

[2:45]

Mr. Kerrio: It’s affecting the projections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wouldn’t be surprised to see a slight change in the approach to the campaign, hut as far as I know Hydro is still planning to continue promoting conservation of electrical energy.

Mr. Cassidy: Since a speech by the minister’s parliamentary assistant back in May indicated there has been economic analysis carried out by the government on the possibility of a home insulation program, will the minister undertake to table the economic analysis which has been carried out by the ministry, and will he say in this House whether or not that analysis justifies what he has been saying in this House or whether in fact that analysis doesn’t justify going forward with a program that would create jobs and help home owners save hundreds of dollars in fuel bills every year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will be delighted to get the analysis and table it.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to a question raised by my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) about Gray Coach tours to Niagara Falls which offer accommodation only on the United States side of the falls.

In 1978, Gray Coach underwrote a southern Ontario tour which included accommodation in Niagara Falls, Ontario. The arrangements were not, in the opinion of the company, entirely satisfactory, with previously agreed-upon accommodation unavailable for one tour. This year the Ramada Inn has proposed an accommodation package which guarantees good facilities in Niagara Falls, New York, at a reasonable cost.

In a letter to the president and chief executive officer of Gray Coach, I have informed him that in our opinion the use of accommodation on the United States side of Niagara Falls is extremely hard to justify. I have also asked him to restructure their package as soon as possible to incorporate accommodation on the Ontario side. Gray Coach has indicated it is most interested in discussing with any hoteliers in Niagara Falls, Ontario. either as a group or individually, proposals regarding tours in which they might wish to participate.

The tourist division of my ministry will assist Gray Coach in working with the Niagara Falls Resort and Tourist Association to ensure those proposals are forthcoming and that Canadian accommodation is offered for future tours in this area.

Mr. Eakins: I thought for a minute it was the minister’s definition of small business.

MINISTRY HIRING

Mr. Eakins: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Following my question on May 4, regarding the necessity of going outside his ministry to have his friends fill the top positions in the reorganization rather than promoting some of the excellent people who worked long and hard for his predecessor, could the minister now tell us how much it has cost the ministry in terms of demotions in directors’ and managers’ positions, first in salary and, secondly, in outside settlements I or those who have left the ministry entirely?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In response to that question, I have been trying to tabulate those figures and I hope to have them for tomorrow morning.

Mr. Peterson: Would you look into Marvin Shore’s case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He used to speak highly of you.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: Since it was deemed so important to obtain from outside the civil service a director for the small business section, namely, a Mr. John Laschinger, is it not more important that he be here doing that job rather than in Newfoundland running the PC election campaign? Further, is it not against the spirit of the Public Service Act that he be engaged in political activity in this manner, especially since the announcement of his appointment was made by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and appeared in the June issue of Topical?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member would read the entire portion of that announcement, he will find that his appointment takes effect on the third or fourth week in this month. What he is doing before the job begins is his business, not mine.

Mr. Ruston: Tory friends.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

Mr. Germa: My question is to the Minister of Labour. It arises out of an incident in the Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury when a hospital worker was injured and placed on Workmen’s Compensation Board benefits. When the administrator of the hospital, Mr. Jean-Paul Lebel, didn’t agree with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, he did admit to taking hospital funds to hire a private eye to trail this injured worker.

Does a worker not suffer enough harassment through a Workmen’s Compensation Board investigator? What can the minister do to protect injured workers from this further harassment by a hospital administrator?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What’s a private eye?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I wish I had the information on hand to respond immediately. That is an allegation which is disturbing. I trust the member will understand if I ask to have time to look into it and report back to him.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary: Could the minister advise all hospital administrators that there is a correct and proper procedure for appealing Workmen’s Compensation Board decisions? Setting aside the waste of medical dollars, does the minister think this is the proper attitude he should be taking?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If that is indeed a practice of hospital administrators, it is something I will have to look into and deal with. I will be glad to investigate it and report to the member.

DREDGING CASE

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. If he really must leave, I can direct it to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Now that the defendants in the dredging trial, the longest trial, I guess, in the history of jurisprudence in Canada, have been convicted and sentenced, will the Premier make public and lay on the table the report of Mr. Campbell Grant, which was commissioned by the Premier’s office two or three years ago, having to do with certain allegations which have never been made public, which evidently formed part of the evidence in that trial?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is well aware that I made a statement relative to this matter some time ago, indicating I was not only prepared but anxious to table this report from Mr. Justice Campbell Grant.

Mr. S. Smith: The former justice. He was no longer in court when he did the report. Let’s be clear on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The former Mr. Justice Campbell Grant. I have discussed this matter with the Attorney General, and his advice, and that from his senior law officers, is that pending the appeals, where the appeal is a matter of both fact and law, it would not be proper so to do.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: The matter was raised with the Attorney General a few days ago and he said: “Upon the completion of the sentencing procedure then the matter would not be considered sub judice.” I can remember very clearly the Premier, in a previous exchange a long time ago, indicating how anxious he was that the matter be set straight. I recall certain other things he said at the time. I would simply ask him to reconsider the matter. It appears the matter of sub judice during this lengthy trial should, in the interests of the Premier and of us all, be set aside so that the matter can at least be made public in connection with those persons named.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member is quite right. I am and have been quite anxious to table the former justice Campbell Grant’s report. I have discussed this and perhaps the Attorney General might have some further comment. However, the advice he has received and I in turn have received from him is that in the interests of the administration of justice in this province and the people involved in this situation it is not the appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would you permit me to ask a supplementary question to the Attorney General? Does he recall saying on May 7 this year, “The dredging trial is not concluded. The accused who have been convicted, the companies, will be before the court for sentence on June 4. I have no further comment.”

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment concerning the emissions from Continuous Colour Coat Limited in Rexdale. Now that the minister has decided not to grant the extension of the voluntary abatement program requested by the company, and has served notice of intent to issue a control order requiring installation of effective pollution abatement equipment by September 30, which is to be completely operational by December 31, will the minister assure the House his ministry will take steps to prosecute the company if it does not meet these new deadlines?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In one very simple word, yes. I’ve said on many occasions since I’ve been in this portfolio, and I’m glad to repeat it very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that it’s important to set realistic and practical control orders, and, second, to enforce them, period.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, since the minister has yet to make public a list of the precise contents or compositions of the 11 different solvents and the 15 coatings used at the plant, can the minister at this time table the specific details of what is being emitted? In particular, can he inform us whether or not there is any lead or lead compounds being used? The minister will no doubt agree this information would be very useful to the residents in the area should they ever decide to take legal action against the company because of health problems. It also would be useful for employees of the company should they have to appear before the Workmen’s Compensation Board following an illness related to the chemicals that were used.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With reference to the latter part of the question, I think there’s no problem with giving that information as it relates to lead. However, with the combinations and permutations possible with that large number of compounds the honourable member spoke of, one of the problems we are having is to determine the emission because of the tremendous number of permutations. It’s proving to be a very difficult technical problem for us to solve. Certainly we think the control order will go a long ways towards that portion of it, but to put all of the emissions on the record for the honourable member is proving to be very difficult. However, for lead, yes, we’re more than prepared to do that for him, it’s a much easier technological problem.

CANCER INSURANCE

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to cancer insurance. Are any insurance companies offering in Ontario policies with particular reference to cancer endorsements?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are two that are offering it here, but bear in mind it is not the same as in the United States. It is only for supplementary coverage. You can’t cover anything that is insured under OHIP. There have been no complaints. The same types of merchandising are not used, but none the less we are still taking a look at it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Will the minister direct the superintendent of insurance to monitor any proposed changes in the sales of such policies so that the public fears and concerns about cancer and the X-ray and other nuclear radiation matters that have come to our attention recently are not fin- properly exploited by any hard-sell tactics of certain insurance companies?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think you can take it as assured that we are watching the two of them like a hawk every day of the week, and we have been for some time.

MOOSE HUNTING

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of statements by a senior conservation officer in northwestern Ontario that 70 per Cent of the moose killed between Lake Nipigon and the Manitoba border are killed illegally through the use of aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If that’s a statement attributed to one of the conservation officers a year ago, I recall that, yes.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: What action has the ministry taken to ensure that is reduced substantially? Has the minister added conservation officers to cover that region, and has he prosecuted and confiscated equipment when he has had instances of illegal use of aircraft brought to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think last year I answered a similar question as to what we were doing about it and also expanded somewhat on what the conservation officer indicated he meant; which didn’t, as I recall, come out quite the way he meant in the press, at least from what he indicated to us. As I am sure the honourable member is aware, there are such things as shooting game from aircraft, seeing them as you fly over, or going around looking for them and then telling people where they are.

As to what we are doing, we are attempting to enforce the Game and Fish Act. We have had one prosecution in provincial court in Kenora which has resulted in a maximum fine of $1,000 to one person charged and a fine of $500 to another. There are two aircraft presently under seizure. I understand, however, that the 30 days for an appeal has not yet elapsed, so I really can’t say what the next step will be.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that the basic problem is that he does not have enough conservation officers; and secondly, in the cases that he has just cited before the court, could he make it clear that the appeal goes to him, the minister, does it not? Oh, he means the court appeal rather than the appeal about the confiscation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the minister what is his attitude towards his discretionary authority about the confiscation of the equipment used in the incidents?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, that will be quite clear once the court procedures have been completed. If there is an appeal, then we will know after the appeal; if there isn’t, we will know when the 30-day period has expired.

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister

USE OF MATACIL

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a previous question by the same member. I believe on Tuesday the member was asking me about spruce budworm spraying in the Gerald ton district, and what steps we have taken to notify the public and to ensure that people were not in the spray area. The district office prepared and put out a news release on the spray project to the local papers in Kirkland Lake, Timmins and Iroquois Falls on May 15. Mining recorders were fully briefed on the project in case prospectors were in the area, although as members will realize prospectors don’t always tell people where they are prospecting.

District personnel are currently carrying out daily air surveillance of the area before any spraying takes place during the day to see there aren’t people in the spray areas. There was a public information session held in Long Lac on May 25 which lasted some six hours, and ministry staff were there to answer questions and provide information.

There is no road access in the actual area being sprayed. There is one tourist outfitter close to it. He has been well informed, because some of the ministry staff involved in the spraying are staying at his facility. I think it is fair to say everybody in the area who has had any interest would be informed, and the area which is being sprayed is a long way from any communities.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister tell us how many days of spraying he expects the ministry to be doing, both in the Geraldton district and the Kirkland Lake district?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t say because it will really depend on the weather. We don’t spray in high winds, and obviously if there are poor flying conditions as far as visibility and so on is concerned then we don’t fly, or at least the contracted aircraft don’t fly. I would think if conditions are ideal two, or at the most three days, would be sufficient.

We were somewhat delayed in the Kirkland Lake area. There were two aircraft involved in the spraying and one of them had a crash yesterday. I don’t know how much damage was done to the aircraft, but I understand the pilot is in hospital with a strained back. I believe another aircraft has been dispatched by the contractor to fill in, so there shouldn’t be any excessive length of time involved.

USE OF GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Are the government computers used by the riding associations of government members or cabinet for constituency mailing lists or party supporter lists?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t the foggiest idea, but I will be delighted to find out.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: I, personally, have been trying to find out from the Premier’s staff and they weren’t able to answer, so I would appreciate the answer. If they are being used, what is the fee for service?

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Recently, the operator of a furniture stripping business in my riding was ordered by the city authorities to dispose of four 45-gallon drums of stripping fluid, which is highly dangerous and volatile, because the storage facilities had been damaged by fire. He was unable to find a single firm in the entire Metro area which could handle this problem for him.

I would like to ask when is the minister going to ensure adequate disposal facilities for hazardous liquid waste in the Metro area are established so wastes of this kind are not dumped illegally or do not have to be trucked long distances with dangers of spills, and high costs as well?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I certainly hope they aren’t being dumped illegally now. Again, if the member thinks they are I wish she would give us that information. We will establish those sites as soon as possible; I think the member probably is well aware of the efforts being made to establish sites. The member should also be aware of the responsibility of industry to do so. It is now possible to have many of the hazards treated here in Ontario. It is also possible to send them to other jurisdictions, but most of our wastes can be treated here in Ontario.

We will never have enough sites so all of our liquids can be handled without travelling some distance. That is not something the member should look forward to, it doesn’t make sense to do so.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Can the minister tell us exactly how many sites there are in Ontario that could handle this kind of waste?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to be sure of what that waste is. I know the honourable member gave it to me, and I will supply that information. There are several sites available, but not all can handle all the various liquids. So I would have to check with my staff and get back to the honourable member.

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he is still available. The question relates to the construction of new regional government headquarters in various municipalities that have regional governments. In light of the fact the provincial government has espoused the cause of financial restraint and has encouraged municipalities to practice financial restraint, would the minister feel it wise for any of those regional municipalities that do not now have a regional headquarters to embark upon a multi-million-dollar building program in order that they might have a new regional headquarters, with one would presume expanded staff and facilities at an additional cost to the taxpayer?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I could put the answer to the question this way: We do not pay grants on regional headquarters for regional governments. Since the philosophy of our party and the honourable member’s party in regard to local autonomy for municipalities is very similar, the decisions as to whether or not a new regional office should be built really rests with the people who are elected in the particular region. Therefore, if my friend is talking about the regional municipality of Niagara, I think the councillors of the regional municipality are the ones who should decide. They are elected to make those decisions and they should make those decisions.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that reviews of regional government have taken place in the Niagara region, one in 1971 and a more formal one in 1975, and as I believe the ministry is still reviewing regional government in terms of the Archer report and the McKeough response to the Archer report with a view to improving legislation whenever necessary, would the minister not agree that it would be advisable for regions not to expand their facilities at a time when he is reconsidering regional government and the delineation of powers within the region of Niagara?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the region of Niagara is concerned, I met with the regional council in a very pleasant informal meeting in their present regional headquarters, which I found a very nice building although it was a converted industrial facility. As I recall, my remarks at that time were that after discussion that morning any recommendations of the Archer report had been pretty well handled. I really do not see any new or dramatic recommendations for restructuring occurring in the Niagara region unless the council and the local municipalities themselves come forward with some thing. I think we have pretty well finished with the Archer report as far as Niagara is concerned.

Mr. Swart: While the minister states that he does not want to interfere with local autonomy in Niagara with regard to financial matters, would he not admit that land use generally comes under the jurisdiction of the province? Would he, in this case, recommend to the regional municipality of Niagara that they should not locate their headquarters within the municipalities that are in the prime fruit and grape land?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any more appropriate item that should be settled at the regional level and not here than where to locate the headquarters of a regional municipality. I think that is one area where we must respect local autonomy. They will pick the area that is best for all the region.

LOTTERY PRIZES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Is the minister giving any consideration, together with the other provinces, to the suggestion that with regard to the provincial lottery the prizes be spread over a much wider range than a straight five $1 million prizes each month so that many more people could win prizes at a slightly smaller rate, which would be of greater help to the economy.

Mr. Haggerty: Too many millionaires are leaving Canada.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Baetz: That question would probably take at least an hour or two to answer. I would like to say the whole question of prizes, especially for the lotteries of the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation, is currently under study. In fact, the Interprovincial Lottery Corporation met in Banff earlier this week and will be meeting again later in the year when the whole question of prize structure will be considered.

Along with that, the question of the future of Loto Canada will be discussed. Until that time, I really cannot make any comment or response that would be very helpful to the member opposite.

Mr. Ruston: A brief supplementary: Does the minister intend to make any presentation which would spread it over a much wider range?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will be making our input to that meeting, along with the other nine provinces.

AMBASSADOR BRIDGE

Mr. Bounsall: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. The Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit is the only international bridge of the 14 in Ontario never covered by a provision for eventual reversion to Ontario or to Canada when the construction indebtedness became retired, which certainly is the case with this bridge. Is the minister aware that in 1973 the government of Canada, under the then minister Mitchell Sharp, laid down criteria for the terms and conditions for any sale of this bridge to another privately-owned outfit, to the effect that the Canadian portion be conveyed at no cost within 25 years of the date of that sale to a new vendor? Therefore, would the minister pursue and pressure the Canadian government and explore this avenue with them, in order that Canada or Ontario, under those conditions, receive ownership at no cost, even if it runs to 25 years from now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. I’m trying to build up credits with Mr. Speaker by being brief.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Conway: I have a question of the Attorney General. Apropos of the Attorney General’s crackdown on violence and the carnage on our highways, I ask what is essentially a local question but one that does concern me a great deal. Is the Attorney General aware that in the small hamlet of Madawaska, which has a population of roughly 300 to 400 people and is in the south portion of the district of Nipissing, at least six people have been killed on the highway, which forms the main street in that community, in the recent past?

Is the minister aware of this, since it is a prime example of the carnage he clearly wants to do something about? Will he advise himself as to why the speed limit continues to be much higher than local residents want it to be? Will he advise himself and me, at least as the local member, why it is that in that community there is still a passing lane right through the heart of the area, in which very recently yet another child has died very tragically?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the tragic incident to which the member refers. I certainly will look into it and advise him accordingly in an attempt to respond to his concerns.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary to the Attorney General: In his crackdown on speeding, is he not aware the death rate on the two-lane highways is about 2.6 per 100 million kilo- metres, and on 401 and the 400 series generally it is 0.6 per 100 million kilometres? Wouldn’t it be better to put the police on the two-lane highways to try to control them a little more?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s because you use the four-lane. Don’t you? We know how you get home nights.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Obviously, the judgement in these matters as to where the police patrol is not a judgement I attempt to impose. My concern is with respect to highway traffic safety generally, neither it involves excessive speeding or other traffic infractions. I am very concerned about what I read in the paper about the former leader of the Liberal Party being called upon to pay this large fine --

Mr. Nixon: You are trying to balance your budget.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and I understand to a greater extent his comments of the other day. Whether these patrols or greater police visibility should be on the four-lane highways or the two-lane highways, I am not in a position to make that judgement. I just reiterate what I said before, police authorities do agree -- and I met with a number of them recently and will be meeting with a number of them again within the next week -- that increased police visibility does reduce the accident rate.

MINISTRY HIRING

Mr. Eakins: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Following my question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism in regard to the appointment of Mr. John Laschinger, the minister inferred that perhaps I had not read the full article in regard to his appointment. I want to point out that I have a copy of the Topical Job Mart of June 1, and nowhere in the article does it refer to the time of his appointment. In fact, in the announcement it gives his background prior to joining the Ontario public service, and the impression has been clearly given that Mr. Laschinger is now a member of the public service.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To respond, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I’m sorry. I thought it was part of that notice. None the less, I want to assure the House that he does start on the third or fourth week of this month.

REPORTS

BULK POWER FACILITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to table two reports which I think honourable members will find of interest, namely the report by the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning on the need for additional bulk power facilities in southwestern Ontario and a report on Canada-United States electricity exchanges.

The report by the royal commission, headed by Dr. Arthur Porter, on the need for additional bulk power facilities in southwestern Ontario was released yesterday in London, Ontario.

As honourable members will recall, the Porter commission was requested to consider and report on: one, the anticipated growth in demand for electric power in southwestern Ontario up to the end of 1987, and from 1987 to the year 2000; and two, the capability of existing and committed bulk power generation and transmission facilities to supply this additional electricity to the area, taking into account government policy with respect to the use of interconnections with neighbouring US utilities and on the resulting date on which additional bulk power facilities, if any, will be needed, but excluding consideration of their specific nature and of their locational and environmental aspects. These latter aspects would be considered by the Environmental Assessment Board.

The Ministry of Energy will be meeting with the royal commission to discuss the recommendations over the coming weeks in order that appropriate consideration can be given to them. I do not intend to comment on any specific recommendations at this time, other than to note that the royal commission reports make reference to the need to strengthen system interconnections from both an operational and export point of view.

CANADA-UNITED STATES ELECTRICITY EXCHANGES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the Canada-United States electricity exchanges report, released last week by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am pleased to say that on most, if not all, of the recommendations made in this latter report that apply to Ontario’s jurisdiction, the government has already put in place policies that meet the needs cited. Some of these policies are set out in the appendices to the Porter commission’s report.

As my immediate predecessor said last year, Ontario Hydro is negotiating with other Canadian and US jurisdictions to develop further export markets. The Canada-United States electricity exchanges report identifies and makes recommendations that can, I trust, if acted upon, only serve to improve the potential for the sale of electricity in neighbouring jurisdictions.

MOTION

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing general government committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House this afternoon for the purpose of voting upon outstanding clauses in Bill 163 in preparation for reporting it back to the House.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGGREGATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Mid moved first reading of Bill 127, An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

SMALL BUSINESS ACT

Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 128, An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the preservation and expansion of small-business enterprise in Ontario. The bill provides for government efforts relating to tendering policy, subcontracting, research and development and small-business consortia as a means of providing support for small-business enterprise.

PREDATOR CONTROL ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 129, An Act respecting Predator Control in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have introduced this bill with a great deal of support from the farm organizations throughout Ontario. If I introduce it often enough, maybe the minister will act on it.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the establishment of local predator control committees throughout Ontario to develop methods and procedures to protect livestock and poultry from destruction by predators.

A committee is to be established for each predator control area designated by the minister and the committee, within one year of its establishment, must prepare a predator control plan for approval by the minister. The bill requires every predator control committee to regularly review the predator control plan and to report to the minister on an annual basis concerning whether the plan has been effective in reducing the level of predator activity.

FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 130, An Act respecting the sale of Farm Machinery and Equipment in Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, this bill is patterned after legislation in Manitoba and the request made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

The purpose of the bill is to regulate the sale of farm machinery and equipment in Ontario. The bill establishes the Farm Machinery and Equipment Board to carry out several tasks respecting the sale of farm machinery and equipment. The board is given the authority to investigate complaints and mediate disputes arising from the sale of farm machinery and equipment and may establish inventory guidelines for vendors and dealers of farm machinery and equipment. The board may also make recommendations to the minister concerning the safety requirements and parts standardization for farm machinery and equipment.

Among the principal features of the bill are the following: Dealers are required to provide certain emergency repair parts on 72 hours’ notice. Where a dealer fails to make repair parts available within the time required by the bill, the dealer is liable to pay the purchaser an amount equal to one half the normal rental rate for farm machinery and equipment. The bill also sets out warranties applicable to the sale of farm machinery and equipment.

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 205, 206, 212, 213, 218, 219, 220 and 221 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would take this opportunity, pursuant to standing order 13, to indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this week and next week.

This afternoon the House will take into consideration ballot items standing in the names of the members for Waterloo North and Lakeshore and, this evening, the 26th order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

Tomorrow morning we will do legislation, and we will call this legislation in order:

Bills 46, 100, 103, 114, 116, 117, 101 and 95. On Monday afternoon, June 18, we will carry on with the legislation I have just mentioned from where we leave off at one o’clock on Friday. The House will sit Monday evening next week and, starting at eight, we will commence consideration of Bills 80, 81 and 82, to do second reading and committee as required; then Bill 113 -- second reading and committee if required -- and Bills 111, 112 and 108 in committee of the whole.

On Tuesday afternoon we will do legislation: Bill 89, second reading; Bills 90, 99 and 89 in committee; and Bills 119 and 123, second reading and committee if required. The House will not sit next Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday the resources development, administration of justice and general government committees will meet in the morning.

On Thursday, June 21, the House will sit in the morning to clear up legislation. In the afternoon we will do ballot items standing in the names of the members for Sault Ste. Marie and Essex North. In the evening we will do the 28th order of today’s order paper, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman. I should indicate at this time that at least we will get started on that debate.

On Friday morning, June 22, we will continue with legislation standing in the name of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs from where we leave off on the preceding Monday afternoon.

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I am not seeking direction necessarily; I am just wondering about the procedure with regard to ballot item 22. I am not objecting to the ballot item itself, but I did not see it on the order paper prior to Monday of this week. I thought the procedure was that such items had to be on the order paper 14 days prior to the day of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: You are right. The standing order does provide that two weeks’ notice be given. It is my understanding that it was on the order paper a considerable time in advance of that but not under the name of the member whose name appears associated with it now. I suppose it may be dangerous to establish any precedent that would vary from the standing orders; however with the unanimous consent of the House, perhaps that can be accomplished without it appearing to be a precedent. I do not hear any objection to it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to the point of order, I think the honourable member does raise a question with respect to the procedures for consideration of private members’ public business. There may well be some question with respect to that item scheduled for this afternoon, both with respect to the matter of substitution and particularly with respect to the amount of time which the rule requires in so far as its being published on the notice paper as standing as an item to be debated. In order to preserve the spirit and the letter of the rule, perhaps the House should be asked for its unanimous consent that this is a change in the standing order. We would offer the consent of this side of the House that the matter proceed, notwithstanding it is out of order according to the standing orders.

Mr. Foulds: I am sure all members would agree the spirit of the standing orders has been met in that the matter, as the Speaker rightly pointed out, had been printed on the Order Paper in another member’s name in a different form. So the House was not unaware it was possible for the topic to be debated within the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to deal with ballot item 22 as the second item this afternoon?

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the government House leader at what point, presuming there is success within the committee on Bill 163, that would he dealt with by the House?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I was hoping I could be more specific with respect to that but I think a lot depends on what is going to happen in the general government committee within the next hour or so. A lot will depend on how it is reported back and the attitude of the House with respect to whether or not further committee examination is required here.

If the member would just leave that matter open, we could perhaps indicate once we have had a message from the committee. If all members will keep their fingers crossed, hopefully they can resolve that in another place this afternoon.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 17, An Act to revise the Line Fences Act.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Epp: I believe this is a very important bill I am proposing here, particularly as it concerns the metropolitan area of Toronto. It does two things: First, it permits Metropolitan Toronto to have a chairman elected by the people of a municipality. The chairman would have to have a seat on local council and retain that seat in order to he elected chairman by his colleagues at the Metro level. Second, it permits the local council representatives and school board representatives to be elected for a three-year terms rather than a two-year term.

I am doing this for a number of reasons, but particularly because as a Liberal I believe in making government more responsive and more responsible to the electorate. So often we say the provincial representatives are responsive and responsible to the people. We mouth great rhetoric about these views, but this is an opportunity to do something. Representatives of this Legislature have an opportunity not only to speak to it, but actually endorse that principle as it is included in this bill. I believe these two changes will present measures that are important to the people of Toronto and important to the representatives of the various councils and school boards in view of the fact that after hearing hundreds of briefs, Mr. Robarts, who headed the commission, was able to make that recommendation.

Mr. Wildman: How does this coincide with how you voted before?

Mr. Epp: It’s completely consistent with bow I voted before. There are a number of things that should be kept in mind. First of all, I would draw attention to the three-year term.

Speaking about the three-year term I , when we look at the other nine provinces and what they are doing and what they have recommended, we find that Alberta has the three- year term, Manitoba has the three-year term, New Brunswick has the three-year term; Nova Scotia has the three-year term, Quebec has the three-year term, and Saskatchewan has the three-year term for cities but a four-year term for towns and villages.

There are only two areas outside of Ontario that retain the two-year term: Prince Edward Island, which has a population of about 100,000 or a little better than 100,000 people, and British Columbia. In Newfoundland, municipalities there have four-year terms. So most of them have at least a three- year term and one has a four-year term I .

In Metropolitan Toronto one will recall that in 1965 Mr. Goldenberg, in his report to the provincial government, recommended that Metropolitan Toronto have a three-year term and this was enshrined in legislation and was in effect for the two elections of 1966 and 1969. It was only after that that the present government recommended that they go back to the two-year term.

Mr. Robarts in his report points out that in the thee elections since 1972 the voter turnout declined. In other words, if we look at the logical sequence of events and make a logical assumption here, when they went from the thee-year term to the two-year term, the local interest in elections declined because they were voting for somebody for a two-year term and in fact they could get back at them again in two years if they wanted to. People weren’t as interested in electing representatives who were standing for office for only two years rather than three years.

If we look at the advantages of this recommendation we find that many of the representatives at the Metro and local level have recommended a three-year term. Irrespective of what some of the people on my left may say about this, I feel that the three-year term is endorsed by many of the Metropolitan politicians because they think it would lead to better planning and you know, Mr. Speaker, as everyone else knows, that although much has been done to improve planning there’s still much to be done. They feel in their wisdom, and I agree with them wholeheartedly, that we should have the three-year term and that it would lead to better planning.

The second thing is that it means we have fewer elections and therefore less public expenditure of money. At a time when we in this province are running at a deficit of about $1.5 billion, it’s important that we spend less money rather than more money.

The council and board members would be able to spend more time at the duties for which they have been elected rather than be electioneering. It would encourage greater participation in that longer terms may cost less for electioneering. There’s a lot of money spent by politicians at election time, and this would decrease the amount of expenditures there. It gives them more time to judge properly the issues that are before them and to deal with those issues and see them come to the proper fruition, rather than having to wait for a new council to come in and try to decide by going over the same items again and again.

[3:45]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention and to the members of this House that the MLC supports the thee-year terms. The MLC is the Municipal Liaison Committee, made up of representatives of all the municipal organizations in the province. They endorse the three-year term. A motion to that effect was passed by the representatives at the AMO convention last summer and, I think, the previous summer too.

The former Treasurer and Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. McKeough, in responding to the MLC said that municipalities should have greater accountability and, therefore, he rejected the thee-year term. There may be some members of the government party who feel that the two-year term should stay for Metropolitan Toronto. On the other hand, I feel we should make a change. I want to quote from Background, which is a publication put out by the provincial government.

In quoting what the MLC proposed at a meeting it says: “Mr. McKeough’s statement that ‘There are issues of accountability unique to local government’ is somewhat mystifying. What issues? Municipal government is the most accountable of all levels of government since all council and most committee meetings are held in public as a requirement of provincial law. Minutes and agendas are always available to the public -- again a statutory requirement. Taxpayers at the municipal level have ample opportunity to closely scrutinize the actions of their locally elected representatives, unlike provincial and federal legislative activity.”

They go on to say: “In most Canadian provinces, the terms of office for municipal officials are thee years and in some cases four years. We are not aware of any problems arising from this situation. In summary, the Municipal Liaison Committee has supported the three-year term of office because we firmly believe that it would contribute to improving the quality of municipal government in Ontario and the betterment of our urban communities. It could be optional for smaller municipalities to retain shorter terms if they so choose.” This is what the MLC says. It is very representative of all the municipalities in Ontario and certainly a forward-thinking and forward-looking group of men and women in this province.

It’s also important to note that the committee of review in the city of Winnipeg, which was headed by Judge Peter Taraska and appointed by the Governor General, the former Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Schreyer, recommended that a three-year term be in order for the city of Winnipeg. It’s interesting to note that many of the regional government commissions appointed by this government recommended the three-year term.

Specifically, we can refer to Dr. Mayo who did the Ottawa-Carleton study. We can refer to Henry Stewart who was the chairman of a group of three who did the Hamilton-Wentworth study and we can refer to the former Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. William Palmer, who, only a few months ago concluded the Waterloo study. All of them recommended a three-year term.

Most important, I think we have to read what Mr. Robarts says about this particular item. If we look at the Robarts report, on page 67 it says; “In the view of the commission, arguments for a three-year term in Metropolitan Toronto are convincing. Metro and its constituent municipalities are large and complex organizations and decision-making is a lengthy and complicated process. Given the hiatus in policy-making that exists in the months preceding the following of a municipal election, the period in which initiatives can be planned and implemented is at present only about 18 months. This is too short a time for a council to debate, set and implement the sort of policies that are required by one of the largest spending jurisdictions in Canada. Similarly, many school trustees have told the commission that their responsibilities are extremely complex, that these cannot be fully understood in a two- year term and that it is impossible to bring initiatives to fruition within this period.”

That was a comment by Mr. Robarts in the Robarts report, and I might say for those members who don’t know who Mr. Robarts was that the Premier of this province held him in very high respect, and I would expect that the members of the governing party would follow his example and his wisdom in this whole matter and support my bill today. To quote from the present Premier and what he said about Mr. Robarts and the Robarts report: “The report of this royal commission, copies of which are being given to the members, is of great significance, not only because of the important issues it addresses, but because of the stature of its author.”

I do hope that the members on the government side keep that in mind when deciding on this important issue later this afternoon.

He went on to say: “It is, I think, particularly fitting that John Robarts should be the author of the report on the government of one of North America’s great cities. He began his career in this House in 1951, almost at the same time as the process which led to the establishment of Metropolitan Toronto was begun. As Premier, 12 years later, he recognized that changes had occurred in Metro and that if Metro were to remain a world leader in urban government it must adapt to those changes. He, therefore, commissioned Carl Goldenberg to review Metro, and it was Mr. Robarts who, after intensive public debate, introduced the legislation that resulted in the Metro government we have today.”

Mr. Stong: How soon they forget!

Mr. Rotenberg: I was there; I know all about it.

Mr. Epp: The Premier went on to say: “I am confident that the report will provide us with a basis for continued progress. Metro has been a leader in this form of government and has provided a lesson to other municipalities over the years. I am sure that Mr. Robarts’ report will continue this trend and that the leaders of local government in this province will look to his report as a reference as they seek answers to the government problems in their own areas.”

I will now address my comments with respect to the election of the Metro chairman. As members know, the chairman can be anyone in the province. I am not even sure that he would have to be a resident of Metropolitan Toronto -- and I don’t think the member for Wilson Heights could answer that for me; he may be able to -- hut could be anyone in the province. I hope he would have to be a citizen of the province, but you could pick anyone and make him chairman of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Wildman: He could even be from Waterloo.

Mr. Epp: He could be. It would probably be a good choice.

Mr. Rotenberg: I thought it was.

Mr. Epp: And if he was from Waterloo North it would even coincide with the boundaries for my particular riding.

Mr. Riddell: It is pretty hard to find Tories in Waterloo, and that is one of the criteria, he has to be a Tory.

Mr. Epp: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in defining the position of chairman for Metropolitan Toronto in the Robarts commission report, it stated that: “In law, the chairman’s job is defined even more loosely than that of an area municipality mayor.” That means any mayor in any municipality in Ontario, despite the fact that the position of Metropolitan chairman is much more important and involves the expenditure of many more dollars of public money.

The report goes on to say that: “The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act states that he is head of council, chairman of the executive committee and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan corporation.

“In reality, although occupying the most important single position in local government in the Metropolitan area, the chairman does not have genuine executive authority. His degree of success is dependent upon his ability to work with and influence not only his fellow Metropolitan council members and special purpose body officials, but also the government of Ontario. The chairman is an ex-officio member of various Metropolitan level special-purpose bodies and also serves on intergovernment bodies.”

That is what Mr. Robarts said in his report about the chairman’s position in Metropolitan Toronto. I think our purpose in making him an elected official at the local level and to ‘hold the position on the Metro council and then become chairman of that council gives him a certain amount of authority and legitimacy he does not have as an appointed official. Granted, on most occasions he has been a member of Metropolitan council prior to his election as chairman but certainly not on all occasions. If my recommendation was followed through, he would retain the position on council.

I think if we were to apply to Metropolitan Toronto what Mr. Palmer has said in the regional municipality of Waterloo study, it would certainly be apropos. Mr. Palmer said:

“The principal reason it would be desirable to have an elected person as chairman is to demonstrate to the public that the man at the helm of the regional council bias the confidence of his electorate. He is then a politician and not a bureaucrat. By definition then, the public has more reason to believe the man would be more responsive to the needs of the people if he were an elected official. He would therefore have to stay in touch with the electors on a continuous basis if he wanted to remain as chairman.”

I think that is very important and I hope the members will take this to heart. Right now he could be there for two years or four years or six years and never go back and account to the people, but under this suggested scheme he would have to go back and get the people’s support.

There are three objections to having the chairman elected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Wildman: The member hasn’t expired.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member hasn’t expired, just the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, under which the Metro chairman would be an elected member, and the councils and boards of Metropolitan Toronto would be elected on a three-year term.

In the true spirit of private members’ hour, I am rising to support the bill, knowing full well I have to convince certain members of my own caucus as well as others of the values of this bill. Members will hear some articulate argument on the other side hereafter.

It is certainly ironic to me that it should be the member for Waterloo North presenting this private member’s bill and not the sole Metro Liberal in the Liberal caucus, but I now understand it is only because he aspires to the position of Metro chairman. He is hoping the next act he brings forward will be for the annexation of Waterloo North or something to that effect -- I am only kidding.

Mr. Epp: The member should not be facetious.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will not be facetious.

Mr. Epp: Do you know what you are talking about?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I support moving to a three-year term for municipal boards for four reasons.

Mr. Epp: Then the member must know what he is talking about.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One is the importance of the municipal role, especially in Metropolitan Toronto and larger urban areas. The second is the need to increase accountability. Third, I think it is an important step in developing the party system on a local level, something I am very much in favour of and with which we are having a great deal of success. The fourth is that in the long run, of course, it will save money in terms of having fewer elections.

Mr. Rotenberg: So have six-year terms and save more money.

[4:00]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not in the motion and I am not going to stand to amend, at this point.

I have a couple of hesitations about the bill and the way it’s worded. I would have preferred that there was some precise statement about the Metro chairman’s position. Leaving it out and just having the coverall clause is not sufficient. And I wonder about the advisability of presenting an act which affects only Metro Toronto at this point when it has been pointed out that a number of other municipalities have an interest in this.

On the importance of the municipal role, I would say that over the last number of years especially since Mr. Rotenberg left municipal politics, we’ve moved away from ward-heeling and into planning and complex budgeting and that sort of thing. It’s often said that an alderman spends his first eight months learning how to handle things; the next eight months doing it; and the third eight months running for the next election and therefore is only effective as legislator for a period of eight months. I think that is not --

Mr. Rotenberg: These new aldermen are slow learners. In my day they could learn in two or three months.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That’s not what I heard. That’s another matter. Because so many people have to learn the ropes, there’s a greater tendency for the place to be run by bureaucrats than at other levels of government. When one runs into a thing like the complex budgeting of the city of Toronto and in an election year the budget discussions take place in December and do not end until May, there’s a tendency for a great many things to slip through that perhaps otherwise would not, in the area of planning, in transportation, in densities. It’s important that the power and decision-making be made by the elected officials and not by the bureaucrats. A longer term, effectively dealing with this, would help.

If the Planning Act is amended to give even more power to municipalities as has been suggested in the white paper, it’s even more important that the term be stretched out so municipal officials will have more time to consider things.

The school board in Toronto is a perfect example of a board that needs to have consistent membership at this time. It’s banging its head against the provincial budget walls and the Minister of Education and I worry that if it’s replaced within a two-year period they will have to start the fight all over again with a three-year time frame in which to organize the citizens of Toronto as they have been, and the teachers, they might actually be able to effect some change in the stubborn ministry.

In the long-term, a longer term of office would attract stronger candidates. In my borough of Scarborough, too many aldermen work only part-time. They don’t throw their energy into it as fully as they might. I believe it’s important to have full-time elected officials in every borough in Toronto.

The fundamental weakness in municipal politics is a lack of accountability. There are arguments that say extending the term will increase this problem and the members will hear those later. I would like to argue that it might increase accountability.

The major reason I suggest that is because in a two-year period individuals very seldom are elected on a major program or platform; instead they are elected on the basis of personality and maybe one small issue. Over the course of two years, it’s impossible to determine whether or not they have actively pursued that particular goal and it’s impossible to get a handle on their voting record to determine exactly what their leanings are.

A three-year period would allow a person to establish a program and take the middle two years to work actively towards effecting change in that area, increasing accountability.

It might also help citizens take municipal politics a little more seriously. If it did, we could improve on these 20 and 40 per cent turnouts for municipal elections and that would be a boon.

For all the reasons I have mentioned, I believe the three-year term is important. If we move towards program and platform, we move towards party involvement. If we move towards party involvement in municipal politics, we will have even better accountability in terms of the number of people who are effectively working towards one goal and that will enable municipal voters to make a clear choice. I think it will increase the control of elected people on the decision-making.

I am personally committed to this action and our party in Toronto has endorsed or elected approximately 30 municipal candidates. As municipal critic or spokesman I will be working actively to increase that number in the next municipal election and by that action force the other two parties into the fight on an open basis, which will be worthwhile for all.

The cost factor is obvious, as was mentioned by the mover of this bill. I think there is an argument to be made that at this point we are electioning the citizenry to death, and I think there is an argument that moving to a three-year term would be a useful thing and that two-year elections create unnecessary expenditures.

As I say, my problems with this bill revolve around the Metro chairman’s position. I think it’s absolutely vital it be spelled out very specifically that we want the Metro chairman to be elected and why. I would really like to see that in the bill instead of just being left underneath as part of the council and presuming that will be the case because of the retraction of a particular section.

At the moment, our Metro chairman is accountable to the 36 people who elect him. If we move this period to three years and we don’t have this portion of it happen it would be a disaster for us, and I think it should be reinforced that the chairman is to be elected.

I’m concerned about smaller communities around the province which are not interested in this. Although the Municipal Liaison Committee has supported it, there are a number of municipalities which are opposed to extending it. A number of individuals who have had long experience in municipal politics would argue that it should go back to the one-year term it used to be. We may hear some arguments on that point.

There are other municipalities, like Ottawa, Hamilton and London, which I think should be brought in at the same time as Metropolitan Toronto. There is no reason why they should not be moved to a three-year term at that point. I think it is unfortunate that this comes through only as an act to amend the particular Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

So for the reasons of accountability I’ve laid down, and for the reasons of saving money, perhaps encouraging greater emphasis on programs and perhaps reducing the role of the bureaucrat in municipal politics, I would support this bill.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 106 this afternoon. I do so in the sense of looking at the legislation before us and assessing it critically, not only from an academic point of view but also from a practical point of view as one who has had the privilege and opportunity to participate as one of the elected members within the civic form of government that has been created and is now known as the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The legislation before us is timely and does deserve serious consideration by all members of the Legislature. As we know, the existence of Metropolitan Toronto and its evolution from its inception in 1953 to the present time has been a most interesting one and of great historical importance in many respects. We’re well aware that many other municipalities, not only within our own country but in other jurisdictions as well, have been so impressed with the Metropolitan Toronto government structure that they have modelled their own municipal governments after the Metropolitan Toronto government.

I look back to the days prior to Metro and the efforts of Lorne Cummings, who was the author and architect of the Metropolitan Toronto government, the substance of which and the basic components of which have ‘held true to this day as far as being workable and practical ways of operating the democratic process within a highly urbanized area.

It’s interesting to note -- and I believe the sponsor of the bill alluded to this fact -- with reference to the three-year term, which I must say I endorse heartily, there has been a great deal of consistency with regard to the support shown for this term as enunciated, not only by Mr. Robarts in his most recent royal commission report, but also by Carl Goldenberg in 1965 when he made his monumental report that shaped an important restructuring and refinement of the Metropolitan Toronto government as we have it today. Even going back to the days of the architect himself, Mr. Lorne Cummings, at the very time of proposing the form of Metropolitan Toronto government, he felt it should be built around a three-year term.

The three major critics and persons who were charged with responsibilities by this government to study the system and bring it into being and to hone it and refine it to the reasonable perfection we have today, all of those authors without exception were supportive of the three-year term.

Looking at it from a practical point of view as one who was a member of the Metropolitan Toronto council on occasions while a member of one of the local municipalities, I must say that I can see from a practical point of view the merits of that argument. It’s for this reason that I don’t hesitate to support that aspect of Bill 106.

When we’re dealing with such a large metropolitan area and with such a large metropolitan government representing so many people and administering such a large budget, which I think is probably the fourth largest budget in Canada next to the federal, the Ontario and Quebec budgets, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, from my own personal involvement that not only are the problems of metropolitan government complex, but the resolving of the financial requirements and making the necessary allocations and attending to the annual budgeting to ensure that programs are implemented are also complex.

I’ve found from experience that it takes a minimum of three years from the time an idea is conceived, the monies are allocated and the project gets under way until one usually sees the germ of an idea come to full fruition in the form of a completed facility. This is the pattern that appears to have been followed in the component municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto as well.

In order to have a consistency and continuity of service and responsibility, there is a great deal of merit to supporting the three- year system. Not having been a member of this Legislature and the party at the time, it’s perhaps easy to be critical of the fact that the government went back to the two-year term. I feel from my perspective of a former Metro member that it was a retrograde step to do so. I would encourage and support a return to the three-year term.

However, having indicated support for that aspect of the hill, on the other hand I must be most critical of the other recommendations and proposals contained in the bill. I must say without hesitation that I’m equally opposed in an unqualified manner to the other provision which suggests that the Metropolitan chairman should be elected to his position and that he must be a member of the Metropolitan Toronto council.

[4:15]

We must bear in mind that the very first Metropolitan chairman, Fred Gardiner, was not an elected member of any council and he was indeed the grand master of the Metropolitan Toronto council.

If we look further down the line, we will recall that our good friend Billy Allen retired from municipal politics when he assumed the chairman’s role, and continued to serve well as a chairman, even though he did not hold elective office within Metropolitan Toronto.

Circumstances could arise where a person who was not an elected member could well be the appropriate person for the members of the Metropolitan Toronto council to appoint. Needless to say, in all likelihood it will continue for some time in the foreseeable future that those circumstances are unlikely to arise. Nevertheless, the provision is made for that opportunity in that eventuality. Considering the calibre of the existing members within the Metropolitan Toronto councils who make up the total membership of the Metro council, it is apparent they will not have to go far afield to seek an appropriate chairman to lead them but will be able to select from amongst themselves.

The sponsor of the bill has suggested that, by following the procedures he has set out in his bill, the Metro chairman must continue to be elected within the municipality; so that to say the people of Metro would have an opportunity to elect him to his office is not totally an accurate statement. The people electing him, of course, would be only the people within a given ward in which he sought election or within a given municipality within Metropolitan Toronto wherein he may choose to run as a member of a board of control. It is not likely he would seek those senior offices within the local government, because they in themselves are full-time positions.

If the member for Waterloo North had I had the experience of me and my colleague from Downsview, who will be speaking this afternoon, he would fully understand the impracticalities of continuing to serve as an elected member for one of the local councils and, at the same time, trying to discharge the full-time duties of the Metro chairman.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Williams: One closing statement, Mr. Speaker: There is no way that the Metropolitan chairman could act impartially and service the people of Metropolitan Toronto at large and continue to serve as an elected member of one of the constituent municipalities at the same time. For this reason I would be opposed to the bill. This particular section I find offensive and, as such, the bill itself should fall.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and give wholehearted support to the twofold principle contained in the bill introduced by my colleague for Waterloo North.

I agree with the points brought forward by the member for Waterloo North, and I would like to elaborate briefly on some of them.

The first concept of the bill which is important from my point of view is the fact that it designates a three-year term for an elected official. There is a lot to be said for having a specific number of months or years to serve, in that it would free one up from the constant plague of an impending election. It might be a good lesson for us to learn here in this assembly, that rather than be threatened with an election, we should be free to go about the work of the province and governing the province.

Likewise, the fact that there is a set term -- and it is an extended term, to three years -- frees up an elected official to make decisions that would be for the good of the public rather than for his own personal political good and for the mere purpose of gaining votes. He could be perceived to be acting in the interest of the public in a way that represents continuity. It gives a greater opportunity, in my respectful submission, for the public to assess the record of the elected official.

My colleague from Waterloo quoted Mr. John Robarts who, in supporting the concept of the three-year term, said the three-year term would give “the opportunity to suggest, debate, set, and implement principles and policies.” I believe that concept could be taken one step farther. Not only would the three-year term give the opportunity to suggest, debate, set and implement policies, but it would also give the electorate a chance to assess the relative success or failure of the policies that are implemented. That is a very important aspect to those who have to make up theft minds on election day as to the record of the person running -- whether the policies implemented in the course of his or her term were successful

I would like to spend a little more time, however, on the aspect introduced in this bill that the chairman be one from an elected position, one who has served on the local scene. There are the advantages already suggested -- the confidence of the public in a person who holds an elected office, and the aspect of accountability.

But there are also disadvantages in not having an elected official: The position smacks of political patronage. There is no accountability and the person who holds the office can be regarded as a political puppet.

It can be argued that by requiring the chairman to be an elected representative the best man might not be able to win. That argument may succeed, but it would only appeal to certain people. As was demonstrated recently, the week after the good people of Ottawa defeated Robert de Cotret, he was made a senator and a cabinet minister. Again, it smacks of political patronage.

This is a big government position, holding great responsibility. A person who holds that position is dealing with other political personages. As a result, it would only be reasonable that a person who holds that position be a politician and not a bureaucrat and be a person who is accountable and answerable to the electorate.

It is argued as well that requiring the chairman to be an elected representative could lead to a conflict of interest -- that he could not be loyal to his duties as a local councillor. He might have a local bias with respect to one region. I remind the House that the Premier is also the member for Brampton. The parliamentary system functions this way and surely the municipalities could do the same. We in this House are held accountable to the electorate if our vision is too narrow.

I suppose it can also be argued that one cannot be a mayor of a city or a borough and at the same time be Metro chairman. In my respectful submission that’s easily remediable as well. A person who intends to run for mayor could not hold himself out to run for the power or position of Metro chairman.

I think there’s one more subtle and perhaps very significant aspect of this bill. That is, it calls for the election of the chairman and that election is from within those who are elected to the position of Metro council. It is not, as has been proposed in other legislation that has come before this House, on a Metro-wide basis that the election would arise.

In respect to that, I can quote from Mr. Robarts again in his Framework for the Future, on page 54, When he too put forward this position. He said: “The chairman of the Metro council should be more accountable to the electorate than he is currently. The commission thinks however, that direct election of the chairman on a Metro-wide basis is neither feasible nor desirable. It is not feasible because of the cost that would be involved in campaigning for such a position. It is not desirable because it violates the principle that the council itself should select its own leadership.

“The principle underlies the commission’s recommendations regarding both local and Metro executive bodies. The only exception to the principle is the proposed continued direct election of local mayors because of established tradition and the need to maintain the powerful political base that is indispensable in representing local views in the Metro council. These reasons do not apply to the position of chief executive of the Metro Federation.

“Accordingly, it is recommended that the metropolitan chairman continue to be selected by the council from among its own members. He should, however, also retain his local seat and be required to win election to council again each term, if he is to continue in office, although he would not be expected to take an active part in local council meetings.

“This arrangement,” Mr. Robarts continues, “parallels the situation at the federal and provincial levels of government in which the leader of the government must win election in a constituency prior to taking executive office.” Amply sensible and wholly acceptable and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this concept and both principles contained in this bill will be accepted by this House and I look forward, once they are accepted, to their extension to those regional municipalities that are beyond the borders of Metropolitan Toronto in such places as York, Durham and other regional areas.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill and, unlike any previous speaker so far today, to speak against the three-year term for the council of Metropolitan Toronto. I suggest that this bill, unlike a lot of other bills in the Legislature, is not really a party bill. I know it’s a private member’s bill but it won’t divide, at least I hope it won’t, on party lines because party policy per se on economics, et cetera, does not really enter into the decision-making on this kind of matter.

I have heard many arguments put forward up to this point on the reasons as to why there should be a three-year term and particularly the argument that it should be because the Association of Municipalities of Ontario wants it, because the Provincial- Municipal Liaison Committee wants it, because the Metro council wants it, because Robarts recommended it. I suggest to you, however, Mr. Speaker, that in the consideration of a basic principle of whether there should be a two- or three-year term, municipal people -- and I have a great respect for them -- have a vested interest in other than just what may be for the good of the people within their municipality. I don’t think it’s unfair to anyone to say that if one is elected to a public office, whether it’s municipal or in the Legislature, and after one goes through that expense and that trauma, if it turns out to be that, one likes to feel secure for a period of time. That’s a natural reaction by politicians but really, I think we can’t give high priority to that. Rather we should be considering what is best for the public in a municipality.

I can recall, because I was in municipal life for quite a number of years a great debate which lasted over many years whether there should be a one-year or a two-year term and in many instances that was given to the public within a municipality to decide in a referendum, and it was always turned down, including in the city of Toronto. The public generally turned it down when that was put on a municipal ballot. They wanted the people elected to be accountable to them on a more frequent basis.

That right, of course, was taken away. Councils were given the right to set up over a period of time -- to decide whether they wanted a one- or two-year term and now, at least in regional municipalities, in the local municipality it’s done under the Municipal Act. I would point out of course that even those who have been studying local government across the province haven’t been unanimous in this. Robarts made the recommendation for a three-year term in Metro Toronto.

[4:30]

Of course, another ex-politician, a well-known Conservative and a person who has long experience on the Toronto and Metro councils, William Archer, made the exact reverse recommendation when he did a study in the Niagara region. I won’t take time to read it all, because I want to deal with the other half of this bill, but the fact is that there is a very real difference of opinion. Perhaps I should just read the first part. He says:

“The commissioner” -- speaking of himself -- “has had personal experience with both a two- and a three-year term and had previously argued for the three-year term.” I want to point out he did that when he was on the city council in Toronto. Then he states: “However, experience and knowledge has now convinced him that the two-year term is more suitable.” When he was outside, looking at it objectively and not as a vested interest, he felt the two-year term was more suitable.

I think it is true, although the member for Waterloo North stated otherwise, that there is more accountability to the public under a two-year term than there is under a three-year term. I think I am right in saying the member for Waterloo North said it would increase accountability. I say it is not so. There may be some argument that it increases efficiency, but it does not increase accountability. The public would have 50 per cent less opportunity than they do now to change their councils. That is true. If we go from two to three years, they won’t have the same opportunity to change their councils or council members, if they don’t like them. I suggest it can get municipalities and municipal councils into more of the manipulations that we have at the provincial level and the federal level.

I know of no municipal council at this time which in the year of an election deliberately reduces taxation and increases services, which is common practice provincially and federally.

Mr. Epp: They can’t budget deficits.

Mr. Swart: They can’t budget deficits, but there is another much more important reason. The accountability of elected people is directly proportional -- perhaps on a logarithmic scale -- to the proximity of the next election. There’s not much question about that. Provincial governments, as has been the pattern of this government across from us, give lots of goodies and cut taxes when it comes to election time; whether it is 1975 or some other year, that is when they improve all the benefits. If we get into three-year terms, I suggest the same thing can happen with municipal councils when we get closer to that period of time. If they are purer than us now -- and I suggest that they are -- then let’s keep them that way, and we will do it at least partially by having the two-year term.

The longer term does not necessarily give greater continuity, either, with regard to operations in a municipality. I sat on local councils when there was the one-year term, and nomination was one week before election day. The lame-duck period then lasted for about two weeks. When we get into a two- year term, it will last for a much longer period of time. When we get into a three-year term, it will last for a still longer period of time, and the campaigning will start six months before the municipal election is to take place.

It is also true that those people who are on the lower incomes, the working people, and those people who may not be known because they are in business in the municipality, or happen to be lawyers in the municipality, become known from running for council once, twice or three times. They are more apt to get elected the second or third time. If we stretch out the length of time, not only will they be more apt to be forgotten between the second and third years, but they also won’t have the number of opportunities to run for municipal council. I say, therefore, that it will increase the opportunities of the establishment to remain in power.

On all counts, I believe that a three-year term will give less accountability to the public than a two-year term, and that is why I am opposed to the three-year term. In this, I think I am right in saying, I am on the side of the public and not of the politicians. Being a municipal person for 21 years, it distresses me that I cannot support perhaps the majority of the politicians. But in this instance, I think they have a vested interest, as we have a vested interest if we were talking about our terms in the Legislature.

I just have about two minutes left.

Mr. Acting Speaker: About one-and-a-half.

Mr. Swart: The second half of this bill before us -- and I say this advisedly with no acrimony -- is the phoniest, most hypocritical section of any bill brought before this Legislature since I have been here.

Mr. Stong: The honourable member stands alone.

Mr. Swart: That party on my right spoke for months and years about the need for electing a chairman. They get up today and talk about the need for electing a chairman. But when the opportunity came, when we moved an amendment in this House a year ago and the Liberals could have had an elected chairman, they voted against it.

Mr. Stong: Not on this basis.

Mr. Swart: On exactly the same basis.

Mr. Epp: It was different and you know it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, there is no time to read it now, so I would ask the people in this House to look at Hansard of May 30 and June 1. The amendment put forward by this person was exactly the same as they have in this bill.

Mr. Epp: Don’t take it out of context.

Mr. Swart: Their only excuse for voting against that amendment at the time was that it was a housekeeping bill. When they had the opportunity to make the change, they backed off. They know this bill is not going any place so they can posture on it.

Mr. Stong: I have never heard the likes of it. Read the act.

Mr. Swart: But when they had the opportunity to change things, they did not take it. I support the second part of this bill, but the party that introduced it does not.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, for five minutes only.

Mr. Stong: That’s too long.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I think it will come to no surprise to members of this House that I will not support this bill in the form in which it appears today. There are two parts to the bill and I want to deal mostly with the second part.

On the first part, as far as three-year terms are concerned, I still feel there should be uniformity of term within the province. I am not prepared to change the term for Metropolitan Toronto unilaterally without talking about other parts of the province.

The proponent of the bill said, “Since we came back to two-year terms, there has been less voter turn out in Metropolitan Toronto.” That was a coincidence and had nothing to do with the term. In the 1972 election, voting for a two-year term, there was a high turnout because there was a heavy contest for the mayoralty of Toronto. Some people I know were involved in that. In 1974 and 1976 there were virtual acclamations. The mayor of Toronto is the big race in Metro and that is why there was a low turnout. It had nothing to do with the two-year term.

The other thing I would point out as far as two-year terms are concerned is that the most powerful democratically elected body in the world, the United States Congress, also has a two-year term.

I want to deal basically with the election of chairmen in the few minutes I have. In theory, the member for Waterloo North is correct: the Metro chairman should be elected. But -- and a big but -- in practice, especially as put forward, it simply will not work in a two-tier government and it simply will not work in the present system of indirect election to Metropolitan council. I would point out that a majority of the members of the Metropolitan council agree.

There are four of us in this House who have served on Metro council: you, Mr. Speaker; the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), whose opinion I am not too sure of; the member for Oriole; and myself. The member for Oriole and myself agree that the present method of chairmanship election is the proper one. You and I, Mr. Speaker, were involved in one of those elections for Metro chairman and neither of us won. I guess that is the way it is.

It is the principle of the British parliamentary system that the electors choose their representatives and the representatives choose their leader. That is, in effect, the way we choose the Prime Minister or the Premier of a province. He is not chosen by the public at large, he is chosen by the people who are elected.

Mr. Swart: But he is elected by the people and must stay elected.

Mr. Rotenberg: There are many people in this world who have far more powerful jobs in democratic countries. Just to point out a couple of them: there is a guy around named Cyrus Vance who runs the foreign affairs of the world; a guy named Michael Blumenthal is probably more responsible for the economics of the world than anybody else; a guy named Arthur Schlesinger is responsible for energy in the United States and the world. The other nine cabinet ministers in the United States do not even hold any elected office. So there are precedents for people in powerful positions not being elected.

Mr. Swart: The leader has to be elected there.

Mr. Stong: We are the enlightened half of North America.

Mr. Rotenberg: I must be getting to them, Mr. Speaker, because they’re heckling

The other point is that, earlier in the day, the Liberal Party was giving a great harangue about local autonomy. The elected members on Metro council have a say. The elected members on Metro council are not in favour of the bill as put forward today. They want to leave the election of Metro chairman the way it is, and they have said so by resolution.

I would point out to the member for Waterloo North that even the bill as he has drafted it really does not do what he wants to do. He’s changing the section which says a member does not have to resign from the local council and permits the chairman to continue on a local council. This is the way it was before 1966. But what his bill doesn’t do is compel a member to remain on his local council. If his bill were adopted, what could happen is simply what happens now. If a member were elected to a council and elected as Metro chairman, he would resign his seat in the local council, and there would be a by-election to fill that seat. But the difference would be, under his proposition, that at the next municipal election -- let’s say Paul Godfrey would again run for alderman in North York, be elected as an alderman in North York, he elected to Metro council, run to become chairman and then resign his seat. The bill doesn’t preclude that. Quite frankly, this would be a very silly way to go about the business.

The other major point is that the Metropolitan Toronto council is not the same as this assembly, and the chairman is not the same as the Premier of the province representing Brampton riding. It is a two-tier system, and the member has to serve on two councils. Being Metro chairman is as full-time a job as being Premier of the province. Yes, he sits on the local council of which he is chairman, as the Premier sits in this House. But either because of the time or the capacity, either physical or mental, a chairman cannot also sit on and do a job on local council.

Under the terms proposed by the member for Waterloo North if a person were elected as an alderman or a controller of a local council and then became Metro chairman and had to stay on his council, in effect he would be a lame-duck member. He really could not give the time that he should to that local council and to his constituents.

Then there’s the point of accountability. The purpose of electing the chairman is that he’s accountable as Metro chairman. But he’s not. When he goes out to get elected, he doesn’t tell the people in ward seven of North York or ward four of Scarborough that he’s running for Metro chairman. No. He’s running for alderman -- and that’s how he gets elected.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The time for debating this ballot item has expired.

Mr. Rotenberg: To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that for these and many other reasons we will not support the bill.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Acting Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

First Clerk Assistant: Tie following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 17, An Act to revise the Line Fences Act;

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act;

Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara;

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Audit Act, 1977;

Bill 33, An Act to amend the Agricultural Development Repeal Act, 1973;

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act;

Bill 43, An Act to repeal the Fires Extinguishment Act;

Bill 44, An Act to repeal the Vacant Land Cultivation Act;

Bill 45, An Act to repeal the Fire Guardians Act;

Bill 52, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972;

Bill 71, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974;

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act;

Bill 88, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act;

Bill 92, An Act to amend the Railways Act; Bill 93, An Act to provide for the holding of Land by Religions Organizations;

Bill 94, An Act respecting the Anglican Church of Canada;

Bill 108, An Act to amend the Public Accountancy Act;

Bill 109, An Act to amend the Evidence Act;

Bill 110, An Act to amend the Administration of Justice Act;

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act;

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake;

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Della Construction Limited; and

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS (CONCLUDED)

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr. Lawlor moved resolution 23:

That, nearing a time of crisis and decision for Canada, a committee of this House be named immediately to review the present proposals and positions of this government in relation to national unity and related constitutional issues, so that the position of this House may be made clear, particularly as the positions of the governments, federal and provincial, of the Task Force on Canadian Unity and other concerned interested bodies have now been published; and that the committee be required to recommend to this House the policy and proposals for Ontario which will best ensure the continuing unity of Canada; the said committee to report not later than November 1, 1979.

[4:45]

Mr. Acting Speaker: Mr. Lawlor has moved ballot item 23, a resolution standing in his name. Will the member proceed for 20 minutes? I assume he will wish to reserve any time left over.

Mr. Lawlor: If there is any time left over, I shall possibly refute all the objections.

On Friday last, and on Monday again, briefly, succinctly and to the point I, with others in this House, spoke on similar issues and there would be little point in rehearsing that particular procedure again.

I thought I spoke particularly well on Friday morning, and that being the ease, I would ask the minister to give a good deal of thought to what was said at that time. Looking at Hansard I said, “That wasn’t too bad. That was pretty well put and should carry some conviction and some weight in the mind of the minister.”

My problem is that I cannot clearly remember ever having a full-blown constitutional debate in this House. There was supposed to be one but I remember I was ill one Friday morning and whether it came about or not I have never been able to say. In any ease, my deep feeling in this regard is that we have had no role, no say, no input as a constituted legislative body contributing, being detrimental to, weighing, assessing, analysing or doing anything with respect to this most critical issue at this time in our history, on this side of the House, or in the House as a whole. This stands as a towering indictment of us all, of everything this House stands for. I’ll come back to that in a few moments.

Before doing so, I would like to refer to the throne speech debate of this year. On page 25 the government said: “It is our firm conviction that a renewed constitution is a high priority of this nation in order to provide a framework in which all citizens and regions can enjoy growth and prosperity within the context of a harmonious and flourishing country.”

It goes on: “The general principles concerning Ontario’s approach in this respect are, we believe, supported by the people of Ontario.” I shan’t give them all; just one or two. They are: “The preservation of the unity of Canada” -- in which we, if I may comment, all share obviously, and some of us are far more stirred, far more desperate almost about it than others seem to be.

Second: “The preservation of a strong central government with adequate powers to pursue the national interest and provincial governments that reflect the regional diversities that are the Canadian heritage.” And it goes on to other points.

What are these “adequate powers to pursue the national interest”? What are the delineations of the portions of provincial governments to reflect diversities within the terms of our national heritage? What is the framed vision for this country? Why can’t we put some definition into the whole thing? Why are we either suppressed, or subverted, or held back in giving articulation to these problems on all sides of the House? Surely in matters of high policy of this kind, where there is a great deal of non-partisan interest, we can come to terms.

But the government circumvents; it spoils. There is some weird mechanism operating in the government where it cages for itself the determination, as though it were handling foreign affairs in Nicaragua this afternoon and didn’t wish interference from the yahoos or the malcontents or those members of the legislative body who might raise points which might be a bit disturbing and might not be on all fours with the declared intent of the government. That’s no democracy. That’s not the way contemporary government -- and certainly not a government in a minority position -- should work. I don’t take advantage of that. I simply point it out. It does give a heightened role, which we wish to share in, which -- to be quite frank -- we demand to share in. It’s our country too and we wish to participate in this.

It’s not enough to simply repudiate sovereignty association and let it go at that. We do that, but does the debate end there? Have we not got the intelligence, the accumulated wisdom? Is not this House held to be perhaps the most sagacious of parliaments in this country at a provincial level? Have we nothing to say to the nation in this regard?

I for one am not prepared to repose this wholly within the sacred confines of either the cabinet or the bosom of the Premier of this province acting alone. He may take that towering significance upon himself and wish that to be the case, but it simply cannot be. It cannot be within the terms of the kind of government we have. I really think he recognizes that, although I have some misgivings about the result of this particular debate in this House this afternoon.

I would like to refer for a moment to a brief article in the Metropolitan Toronto Business Journal of the spring of 1979. It’s referring to the Pepin-Robarts task force which, as has been pointed out earlier in this House along with the Macdonald and numerous reports, would form a very good delineated basis for discussion. It sets the thing up. We have the material before us and there’s no reason this thing cannot be done rather expeditiously.

I’ll speak a little bit more about how I envisage that committee later on, but it could be performed expeditiously with the stuff available. We’ll have to work it up and go over it and in the sense of setting the problems themselves, it would be perhaps a prolonged piece of business. I’ve waited for three years now to see somebody come to terms and to set it out in a quasi-blueprint for us. It’s been done and therefore it’s a question of mulling it over and working it up within a committee context. It can’t be done in this House at all.

The Business Journal says: “The task force found the country and its constitutional system in a protracted state of crisis, the primary but by no means the only challenge coming from Quebec.” That’s true too. It’s not just Quebec. The rumblings in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, are something to be taken into cognizance in this situation and in the drafting of this constitution.

The task force found a pressing need among citizens for fresh accommodation which will permit the people who inhabit this country to live together in peace, harmony and liberty. The task force concluded:

“Canada is passing through a period of travail which is more than a crisis of development. It is a crisis of existence. A central threat to our future existence is the diversity of ignorance where each fragment of opinion is inclined to think that it is the whole.”

Thus, the task force reported: “Again and again people from one group or one part of the country or one economic class would engage in an analysis which they believed to be generally true but which seemed to us who had just got off the plane from the other end of the country to be but a small fragment of the country’s reality.”

Further down it says: “Canadians have a long way to travel and a little time in which to make the journey, but the place to start is by each Canadian reading A Future Together because, as Robarts-Pepin warned, ‘Further erosion of the common will on which our society is ultimately grounded would almost certainly spell the end of the Canadian experience.’”

Flowing from that, and as a comment on this debate this afternoon, is the article by Jonathan Manthorpe of recent date which seeks to penetrate the convoluted recesses of the mind of the Premier with respect to why this hanging hack, this strange reticence with respect to having a group in this House formed from all parties -- and, I trust, an astute group. The issue itself will require a very great ability just to tackle it and to grapple with it. It is a complex and intricate issue.

Let me just say, in pausing here, if that is not done -- if, as Manthorpe says, one of the motivations is fear on the part of the Premier or the government as to what may eventuate from such a committee -- then I would say that shows damned little confidence in the members of this House, the quality of the members who might constitute that committee, their intelligence, their sense of what is fitting and what might or might not be done in the context of that committee.

I will pause here further to say that committee, as I envisage it, would not be a wide-ranging interrogation. It would perhaps be a little like the Ombudsman committee where we screen our witnesses and not everyone can appear before it. It is done deliberately. In this particular context, I wouldn’t say there would be any need for advertising. If people wish to come, the committee itself would make a determination as to what it is there to hear. People who are informed on constitutional issues and people in the field of sociology and political science, et cetera, can make a contribution.

We are not interested in listening to kooks, to prejudiced individuals spouting or to any number of other things. I think that is perfectly within the ambit of the cognizance of the committee to take that position precisely, particularly on issues of this kind.

Other committees in other parts of the world set up their criteria. It has to be done explicitly and it has to be done on rational terms. But once set forth, there is no reason that the kind of exposure indicated in this article and the fears that would be engendered from it need arise at all. Does not this government repose sufficient faith in the members of such a committee and such a group of members to conduct themselves intelligently, knowing what the effects in the Quebec press or otherwise might be from invidious human beings seeking to destroy the country rather than to cement it?

The second thing is timing. The report of this committee may come in at the same time as the referendum. I find that hard to fathom. If the referendum comes in this fall, the committee report will be in or very likely prepared. I think they are parallel things. We address ourselves to the referendum as a separate matter. If members of the committee then are clued in, informed individuals who can make a special contribution because of the hearings and the dispelling of ignorance which had taken place and the insights gained with respect to the future disposition of this country, then all so much the better to enter into the debate on the referendum in this. It is a contribution to the referendum and it is meant to be a contribution to the government.

The government wouldn’t pretend to be all-knowing or all-wise with respect to this particular problem, probably the most difficult, single, legalistic type of problem one could possibly think of. I think it would welcome assistance from any quarter, and particularly from within the House itself. The committee recommendations aren’t binding, as everyone well knows. Nevertheless, they would be very serviceable; they would afford a Pablum upon which one could pour a little homogenized milk of his own. One would be better equipped at the end of the day.

[5:00]

After one has taken a stand at some constitutional conference, one doesn’t want this House to be racked by dispute and internal misgivings and internecine quarrels over an issue of this kind. We want unity; we want to all be working together. In any event, one is in no way bound by the results of the committee work.

To state that on a matter of such high policy, largely of a non-partisan nature, where what is at stake is the very existence of a country, that we not partake or have an input is a denial of the very raison d’être of this Legislature at this time. To base it on fear, to repress or even subvert such a work means that no confidence in the good sense and intelligence of the elected representatives of this province is being adverted to. It calls into question, so far as I am concerned, our fundamental purpose for being here.

I say cry, the beloved country. And as in Alan Paton’s book of that name, I say to the Premier, permit this committee to come into being. It will serve a good purpose.

Members’ misgivings I understand and give credence to. They are not foolish. At the same time, we all live in risk. The risk here can be diminished by setting out the terms of the committee. They can be diminished by seeing that people of integrity and quality get on the committee. But overbalancing that by far is the good work that such a committee can do in feeding the House, informing the members of what precisely are the issues involved here.

Many members of the House are not lawyers; they have never been to the law schools; they’ve never spent days or even half a term on two sections of a particular statute. Yet this is the most salient issue that we face. I was pleased the other day in the course of the debate the great weight wasn’t placed on the economic side of the thing. The issues here transcend economics. There would be less friction in this country and I have little doubt there would not be so much unemployment, particularly among the unemployed youth of Quebec. They wouldn’t be so disgruntled.

There would, nevertheless, be the present cultural difficulty. There would, nevertheless, be the will to separate. We English-speakers have been responsible for that throughout history, largely beginning with Lord Durham, but even before that. Consider Durham’s policies: they were totally repressive of the French fact. They were going to eliminate them, not just assimilate them. The language was to go. That tenor of animosity, that in-built acrimony in our whole situation, has contributed overwhelmingly among the “white niggers of North America” to the present state of affairs.

That is not economic; that is something spiritual, something cultural. We have to come to terms with that. It’s that wider dimension this committee can take on. A few people in government entrenched within the narrow circle of their own concepts are too self-enclosed to deal with that broadly. We need a feeding in, a sense of balance among those who are working and will work, I trust, later this summer, or as I said the other day, after Labour Day. Sure, there are a lot of committees. I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs won’t denigrate.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t believe it.

An hon. member: Give him at least two more minutes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Actually, I was waiting with anticipation to hear what he was going to say, I guess we will have to wait for some future time.

I am rising to speak on the motion of my friend from Lakeshore and I would like to make a few comments. Most of them, I think, have been said in the last week in this House during the debate on the estimates of my ministry. I was thinking, as I listened to the remarks my friend made about having a committee, that I fully expected the estimates of this ministry and indeed the estimates concerning the Intergovernmental Affairs office and all those things connected with the constitution, to be debated in committee this year. For some reason somewhere, that idea was changed. I certainly didn’t agree to it or want it, but I guess somewhere within the mysteries of how the business of this House is organized, our estimates ended up --

Mr. Nixon: Difficult for your whip to cope with.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member’s friends are pointing to him so it must have been the House leaders who agreed on this. I thought we had an understanding that if estimates were debated in the House one year, they would be in a committee next year. I fully expected and hoped we would be in committee this year with the kind of debate that would have entailed.

Let me quickly sum up my position as a private member, since this is a private member’s debate. It’s my position -- and I guess it also becomes the position of the government on this matter because I am going to state a few things that go beyond my own private feelings. I want it fully understood,

Mr. Speaker, that I believe, and we as a government believe, that all members of this House should share in this great debate, the great debate about restructuring our constitution, about renewing our federalism, about national unity, about our approach to the Quebec referendum. This is a very important subject. It’s probably the most important subject there is today. It’s Of immense importance, too great importance to send to a committee first. That is the first thing that I would like to say.

We believe that this matter should be debated right here in this House. We have been relegating all matters to committees for too long; we are getting away, as I said the other day, from the whole idea of debate in this House. Debate in this House of the nature and the kind I see involves extensive preparation beforehand and extensive self-discipline and study, such as my friend from Lakeshore and others in this House engage in before they speak in this House. A subject of this great importance calls for the involvement of most of the members of this House in the debate and therefore the background work on their particular parts. We really believe that debate should be held in this House and that was what the section in the speech from the throne was meant to indicate. It was meant to state the government’s general policies in this regard.

Mr. Lawlor: Useless and hopeless.

Hon. Mr. Wells: To say that a debate in this House is useless and hopeless is a very sad comment and I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that.

Mr. Lawler: Debating it in the House in a formal way achieves nothing. It needs nice parsing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A debate in this House on this very important subject, by well- prepared members, engaged upon as a debate and not a series of readings of prepared speeches, can be a very helpful thing.

This is what should happen and this is the government position; we stated it in the speech from the throne. We intend to put a resolution on the Order Paper. That resolution would have been on the Order Paper and the debate probably would have been held had it not been for the intervention of the federal election. With the agreement of all parties, we withheld the debate until this time. This House is now going to adjourn in a very few days and the debate will not be held now.

There also is a feeling that the use of the debate would be better served if it were closer to the Quebec referendum. We will know, probably by the end of this month, when that referendum will be. At that time we can schedule the debate in this House next fall; that is the commitment of this government, to put the resolution on the Order Paper and to have a debate in this House next fall.

That debate can go for one day, two days, three days, four days, five days, one week, two weeks, or as long as it is necessary for this House to deal with this important matter. We feel that is important. It should not be a half-day or Friday morning debate, but a full-scale debate that will allow all members to express their opinions and then allow us to come to some conclusions, through a resolution -- perhaps amended -- that will say to the people of Canada and the people of Quebec, what this House believes. Then -- and I give this commitment to my friend -- if it is necessary to have a committee of this House set up to carry forward the thoughts that have been set in place from that debate, I think it is well and good that a committee be established at that time, but I do not believe that it should be established until after then.

My friend has brought out, and many members have mentioned, all the documents that are available. The Pepin-Robarts report is a good report. That task force listened to thousands and thousands of people across Ontario and Canada; its report should be studied by members. Our advisory committee’s two reports are excellent and should be studied by the members. The British Columbia government has a good series of reports on its positions on constitutional reform. The Canadian Bar Association has reports. There are reports of the first ministers’ conferences. There is a whole list of materials available, as I indicated the other day. I circulated that list to the members and told them, if they wished it, we would supply them with that material. Incidentally, as I indicated, only one member so far has asked for the material.

Mr. Lawlor: I asked for it, didn’t I?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, my friend asked for it the other day -- quite correctly so. I might say that the one member who did reply asked for all the material; he said, “Send me everything.” So obviously he is going to make a very valuable contribution to the debate when it ensues.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who was that member?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Who was he? It was the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Mr. Nixon: He’s not very busy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point I wish to make is that this material is available, and I think it is the kind of material that the members of this House can spend time studying and reading over the summer.

I also want to make the commitment that members of the staff of my ministry, and I know the chairman of our Advisory Committee on Confederation and others, would be happy to meet with members or caucus groups from this House at any time mutually convenient to talk about these particular matters so that everyone can be prepared for what we see as an important full-scale debate in this House. After that debate, as I say, if a committee is necessary, I give my commitment that we will seriously consider a committee at that time. But at this time we believe there should be a debate in this House.

I would further like to suggest again that perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, through the good offices of your staff and officers, would consider an exchange visit of the members of this Legislature with the members of the National Assembly of Quebec, perhaps including the press galleries. This would be an excellent way for us to meet. It doesn’t have to be a social gathering completely, although there would be some social parts of it. But I think it would probably be one of the most useful things, next to this debate, that this House could do at this time, to arrange in the fall an exchange visit where we could meet both in the sense of an exchange of ideas and in a social sense. It would involve members from all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and members from all parties in this Legislature, and would be organized not by the government, not by one political party or another, but by you, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will consider that.

Those would be my feelings on this resolution: therefore, I guess, I am saying I don’t think this resolution should be approved by this House at this time.

[5:15]

Mr. Lawlor: Manthorpe is right.

Mr. Grande: You just make use of committees when it serves your purpose.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support personally the resolution of my good friend from Lakeshore and its co-sponsor whom I suppose is the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). I do so with a great deal of interest and personal enthusiasm, though I do find some of the wording of the resolution interesting and I probably would not share in it entirely.

Mr. Nixon: Ponderous.

Mr. Conway: Not ponderous. Perhaps I will speak about that in a moment.

I was interested to hear from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect in these matters. As I have said here before, he, over and above so many of his colleagues in the ministry, has led -- and truly led -- the debate as it needs to be led by political figures in this province. His record in Education is one about which I think he and many in this House have a great deal of which to be proud.

I was amazed, though, to hear what he had to say here today about why he would vote against the resolution. To some degree, I know what he says when he talks about this Legislature’s growing desire to refer everything, including the time of day, I am sure, to some committee for its consideration. Although I must say that when 1,000 of us or thereabouts can congregate on the front lawn for hours on end, it perhaps is a comment on what our real role in the world is. I do not agree with him at all that this is a matter of such great importance that it should not be referred to a committee.

I think the committee has a real role to play in educating a select group of interested members who, I dare say, should not be paid the usual summer indemnity. I would be all in favour of making sure that every member of this committee does so out of interest and not out of any concern for the emoluments, whatever they may be at that particular time.

Mr. Nixon: That’s an interesting proposal. Mr. Conway: I am all in favour of a committee that would sit this summer, exclusive of the normal select committee emoluments, so great is the importance of this to me personally.

An hon. member: You would probably be the only one.

Mr. G. Taylor: Put it to all committees and then you have a deal.

Mr. Conway: I would be prepared also to accept that.

The minister says that all of us who are interested have the opportunity to survey the literature accordingly. I must say we are, unfortunately, not all as free and as available as we would like to be.

As one member who does have an interest, academically or otherwise, in this particular sort of matter, I deeply regret that the Rolphton matter, for example, has preoccupied so much of my time as the local member that I have not been able to go to the minister, request all of the information and spend great amounts of time reading it. I greatly regret that my responsibilities as Health critic have precluded me from taking the time I might otherwise like to have to muse about the issues in this connection.

Mr. Nixon: When do you ever fit in your social affairs?

Mr. Conway: I have to say that my support for this resolution is based on the fact that we should have an opportunity to survey the literature in some good forum in some reasonable time to educate those who have an interest in this matter. As someone with an interest, I believe it would serve me as a contributing member of that debate, when it occurs, to have had the opportunity to hear various witnesses, to have reflected upon much of the evidence to which the minister has directed our attention and then to make a qualitatively better contribution, hopefully, to the debate. I believe, as he does entirely, that that debate should occur finally in this House so that all of us can go on record as stating our opinions and points of view.

All I am saying is that I believe, as one private member, that that expression of opinion would be qualitatively better because it would be qualitatively more educated. This committee should be struck to do what the member for Lakeshore has suggested it do because we debate the government’s resolution at a time as close to the actual referendum as is possible.

The minister draws our attention to the fact that it is not the case for us in this House to debate major issues as we perhaps once did many years ago. Older members of my caucus inform me that that is a tradition which has faded around here and not too many important debates occur. Quite frankly, that is my impression. I am amazed at how little of substance this chamber directs its attention to. Really and truly, I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the major debates I have listened to on issues of a more than province-wide basis in this chamber, and I think that is to be greatly regretted.

I personally will never forgive the Premier for what he did a year ago on a certain private member’s bill and not because I, as an oppositionist, couldn’t understand why he might like to take that position. I can perhaps understand that strategically as well as many honourable members opposite, but what I did not like was his contempt of this chamber. What I resented was his unwillingness as the first minister to come into this chamber and to stand up. Granted, it was a private members’ hour, and there are certain technical reasons why he might not wish to engage ordinarily, but that was, as the honourable minister and most of us knew, no ordinary debate.

I was very unhappy and deeply disappointed the Premier did not come in, as many of his predecessors certainly did, and stand in his place and say to the members gathered, to the press assembled and to the population generally, why it was he would not support the initiative undertaken by certain members within. I did absolutely object to his style in that connection, because I do believe it leads to the downgrading of this chamber and the debate that ordinarily should take place within its four walls.

To reiterate, not that I would ever have happily accepted the Premier’s position, but it would have been much easier for me to have sat in this seat and heard my Premier stand across the way and say why it was he could not accept the direction of honourable members. I think that would have been a much more honourable, a much more sensible and indeed a much more heroic position than the one he adopted, which I felt to be, as I said earlier, almost in contempt of this chamber.

Very briefly, I want to say I think the debate is important. We’ve studied everything from land drainage to the after-hours use of school rooms. We will gather this summer to look at the issues of the Education Act or the nuclear safety question, or the matters involving environmental assessment or whatever. Those are all important parts of our provincial mandate, but I think history may reflect upon us in this particular province, wherein I believe the real crisis of the resolution exists. As a private member, I do not happen to believe the separatist crisis exists across the Ottawa River. From my point of view, the real crisis exists here in the suburban heartland of southern Ontario. That’s the kind of issue to which I would like to direct our attention in the committee.

I would be happy to support the minister’s contention that the Speaker engage an exchange between members here and members in the National Assembly. I don’t agree with the minister that we should diminish the social aspects of that particular encounter. I dare say history points out this beloved Confederation of ours was brought into being much more by the cocktail diplomacy of John A. Macdonald and his convivial Canadian compatriots when they finally found their way to Charlottetown that steamy September afternoon, than by the very austere, almost academic, antiseptic discussions that would otherwise take place.

I think the greater the conviviality, the greater the hope for a new tomorrow in this connection.

Finally, I want to say I think the resolution is timely and I think it is eminently supportable, because it will hopefully lead a select group of interested, involved members of this assembly to a much more educated view of the options that have been put forward by many of the groups to which the resolution makes mention. For that reason, I am happy to rise as a private member in support of the member for Lakeshore’s resolution.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution placed by my colleague, the member for Lakeshore, and I welcome the comments made by my colleague, the member for Renfrew North in the consideration of this resolution.

I rise, really, with some degree of sadness, I suppose, or some degree of resignation, in a sense of defeat, about the resolution. I perhaps had thought there would have been a genuine sense of involvement of this assembly in the process of constitutional change in Canada, hut that’s not going to be. I see no likelihood of a change in the government by way of an election in the near future, so I, for one, do not anticipate and will not live in expectation that we will have any opportunity in this assembly for a consideration of the multitude of questions which have to be considered before we can have the kind of constitutional change which will be appropriate.

I know that Dana Fradon, one of the cartoonists for the New Yorker magazine, will allow me perhaps to plagiarize and paraphrase a cartoon of his which appears in the current issue of the New Yorker. It’s a picture of the Ontario cabinet room. At the head of the table is the jovial Premier (Mr. Davis), bilious Bill. Down in the far corner there is, obviously, the provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birth), and to the left of the Premier is the eager Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). I see the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I don’t see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, (Mr. Wells), he must have been away at the one cabinet meeting that the question of Confederation was discussed.

In the caption at the bottom of the cartoon the Premier says: “Then we’re all agreed, as it has always done with its difficulties in the past, Canada will somehow find a way to solve its constitutional problems.”

I would have liked to have had a small part to play in the “somehow.” I really would have enjoyed the opportunity to have had a minor role to play in the way in which the constitutional change in the country was to take place.

Although I am a loyal Britisher, I don’t happen to have a great deal of English blood in me as such so far as our family tree would indicate, so I don’t subscribe to the view that we muddle on these issues. I’m quite satisfied that the Premier is one of the latter day advocates of that particular way of dealing with important issues. We never deal with them openly, we never deal with them up front, we never deal with them as matters which can be articulated with feeling about matters of significance to us; it’s not his style.

In the cartoon there is also a picture on the wall. I bad difficulty discerning whether it was George Howard Ferguson, whether perhaps it was George Drew, whether perhaps it was Leslie Frost It certainly wasn’t John Robarts, because John Robarts would have had his picture turned to the wall at what the present Premier is doing. If there was one thing, one area demonstrated in his co-chairmanship of the Pepin-Robarts report, and as indicated at the time when he was Premier of this province, it was his sense that you had to involve people in the vitality of the country as ultimately to be reflected within its constitutional framework.

[5:30]

But, Mr. Speaker, in the regression which is taking place in the Conservative Party as it tries to go back to the Ontario of 1940 with the small budget, the small problems, it seems to me that it is prepared to hold on to power in some kind of an intense grasp that makes them more and more frightened to deal at all openly and fairly in this assembly with the issues of the day. We see it every day in the absence of the Premier from any participation in the debates of the assembly. Once question period is over, no more do we see the Premier. What a contrast, even in the time I’ve been here --

Mr. Eaton: Nor your party’s leader. Where is he?

Mr. Samis: Where is the cabinet?

Mr. Renwick: -- to the way in which the former Premier, the only other one under whom I have been a colleague in the House, used to be in the House. The place was important then.

Hon. Mr. Dernier: This Premier spends more time in the House than any other Premier.

Mr. Renwick: I know I’m not allowed to attribute unavowed motives to anybody. I’m going to tread that narrow line of speculating about the motives which are involved in this.

One of the obvious things is that the government has achieved its purpose. It has so downgraded the issue of Confederation and national unity in the minds of the public of Ontario that it has no priority. That is default of leadership because the question is the most profound question to face this country. It is the other side of the economic problem. Many of the economic problems are worldwide and intransigent problems. Many of them are structured and many of them are part of the inadequate structure of Confederation in this country.

Let me speculate on another motive. He wants us all to agree with him about the somehow. We don’t know what the somehow is, as to how we’re going to solve the problem. We all must agree because we all must leave it to this egocentric Premier to have the luxury during the next election campaign, if it serves his purpose, to wrap himself in the flag as the only participant who can lead this province into his version of the future. That’s another one. We’ve seen that one performed in a modest way before in the last election.

Let me try another one on. In a funny way, if he’s intransigent in his position, he may solve a problem for a short time, but the problem will come up at a later time. He may not be here and we may not be here, but the nature of Confederation is such that it requires a continuing communication; just, I suppose, as all personal relations require continuing communication and continuous talk. There’s no way in which this Premier ever talks any more or communicates about himself and his relationship to the leadership of the province.

Let me say again that he delights in the charade of public participation in an open conference at Confederation discussions in the centres of Canada, whether it’s the Premiers’ conference or whether it is the Prime Minister’s conference of first leaders, pretending to be open. What has happened is that all of the decisions are made in that strange intellectual world of the academics and the bureaucrats, that’s where the decision is now taking place. There isn’t a public forum in the province of Ontario where the matters are discussed.

The solutions to constitutional problems aren’t decided in open debate. I remember very well when the Premier very casually offered the then Prime Minister Trudeau correctional services in return for something else.

I rather shuddered at that time, because the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) was then the Minister of Correctional Services here and we all know the reputation of the federal government in the penitentiaries area. Under the present Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) I think maybe the inmates would be somewhat better off under the federal penitentiary system. But let me say, as a member of this assembly, in my private capacity as a member representing one of the ridings in the province, that I consider the exclusion of this assembly from participation in that ongoing process of constitutional change related to the question of national unity is one which I regret I will not be able to have an opportunity to share.

Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking against the resolution. I apologize for not having had the opportunity to be here earlier to hear the comments and, I am certain, the important comments made by the previous speaker.

Mr. Nixon: You mean your minister?

Mr. McCaffrey: Did my minister speak on this as well?

Mr. Nixon: Just before he left.

Mr. McCaffrey: I have two or three matters I would like to share with the members about this resolution to try to make it as clear as I can why I am opposed to a resolution that would set up another committee.

I am trying to see this not in isolation from other matters which have been of real concern to me in the two years I have been here. One obviously is the number of committees we have been confronted with in those two years -- and that has been the case in each of the recesses since 1977. Related to that is a concern about the relevance of this chamber and the lack of meaningful debate that takes place in this chamber. Those comments have also been made by members who have had a long stay in this Legislature.

I have heard people from both sides of this mom talk about their deep concern that we are getting to the point where really meaty matters are debated, sometimes well and in depth, in committees; that, increasingly, substantive matters are not discussed in this chamber.

Mr. Lawlor: That is getting to be a red herring. That’s just nonsense. Committees do good work. Certain things are better done in committee.

Mr. McCaffrey: The committees do outstanding work. One of the reasons I was late -- and I share this with the member for Lakeshore -- is that we just reported Bill 163, which we will report back to the House next week. That is an illustration, I say in a non partisan way, of a situation where a great many people in this chamber made a tremendous contribution. I think that will be measured with the passage of time when we take a look at Bill 163 in here.

Quite frankly, big matters of principle like the continuation of rent control and tenant protection, all of those rather substantive and meaty matters of debate have taken place in committee room 1 for a period now of some five months, and all members of this Legislature have not had a chance to speak in this room on some of those very relevant concerns.

I think I could say, on behalf of the 15 MPPs on that committee, that a lot of substantive material was covered and a lot of substantive principles were spoken to. It is a sadness of mine that people in this chamber, members preoccupied on other committees, did not have an opportunity, on some of the evenings we sit around here, to speak to the questions. I have said this before. As a private member I made a presentation to the procedural affairs committee on this. In my judgement, it is sad that I have never had an opportunity to hear the member for Lakeshore talk about the matter of affordable housing. I have never heard his views on the matter of tenant protection in Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: It wasn’t because I was in the House; I was in another committee.

Mr. McCaffrey: Quite frankly, I could live without having heard the member for Lakeshore share some of those experiences but, very selfishly, I would like to hear the member for Lakeshore’s personal position on the matter of Confederation, on the state of the constitution, because he has been here for a long lime and he has a great reputation. Anyone who can write poems is someone I take seriously, and I would like to have the opportunity to hear his views.

If I were so lucky as to be named a member of that committee, it would be something I would relish. Quite frankly, it would be like doing postgraduate work on the public purse. For personal reasons, there is nothing I would rather do.

Mr. Conway: I’d make sure you weren’t chairman; I’ll tell you that.

Mr. McCaffrey: I have discussed this with the member for Lakeshore’s colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. In this particular issue, more than in most other issues we have been preoccupied with around here in various committee rooms, this is the room in which such a debate should take place. I personally think the time should be set aside, whether it’s in a matter of weeks or months it matters not at all to me and I don’t think it would matter to the House leaders, but this chamber, which is really the one visible room with which the 8.5 million citizens in this province can identify, is the forum to discuss this matter. The public gallery, in my judgement, could be well utilized every night if we opted to sit every night on this.

I am opposed to a committee because by naming a committee, select or otherwise, the minute it is named then it effectively cuts off other duly-elected members of this room. It keeps them from making the kind of contribution they are not only entitled to make but that they have a responsibility to make on this issue. This effectively cuts them off; just as the member for Lakeshore was effectively cut off from making the kind of contribution he is capable of making in the rent review committee. Because of the rigidity of the committee system and the lack of bodies to man them, he really didn’t have the opportunity I am sure he would have wished -- and I, selfishly, as a private member would have wished him to have -- to speak in that committee.

It’s critical that we discuss this matter, dealing as it does with the very substance of the future of Canada, the substance of this government’s position vis-â-vis Confederation. It’s critical in my view that we discuss it in this room in as public a way as we can. If there ever was a topic that demanded intelligent use of this chamber it’s this topic, in my view.

Some weeks ago, I asked for an opportunity to speak as a private member to the procedural affairs committee. At that time I did share some of these concerns; I didn’t know about this resolution but they were concerns in a more general sense.

It’s a frustration for me, from time to time, when I never know whether we’re going to sit on a Tuesday or a Thursday or if it’s going to be the Monday. I can live with those kinds of concerns. As a private member I sometimes have difficulty knowing what issues we are going to discuss next week, but that’s something I can cope with, but what on earth does my confusion mean when one gets to the 8.5 million other citizens who haven’t got a clue what we will be addressing ourselves to even a week or two in advance. The point I made in the procedural affairs committee and, I think it’s just criminal, is that we can all find out what’s on channel seven a week in advance and we don’t even know what’s going to be discussed in this room as far in advance as we might like to, which is something citizens should be entitled to know.

This room could be used in a more creative way. Public submission, I really believe -- the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and I have talked about this -- could be made right in this chamber. There are ways one could cope with this.

We talk about the relevance of this place, the relevance of the committees, the relevance of the time we set aside for debate. Heavens, most of the time we’re just concerned about our own scheduling and whether we can man the committees or whether we’re going to have sufficient people here for evening debates and possible votes. All of this is quite irrelevant in the context of the citizens of Ontario knowing what we are discussing, when we are going to discuss it, and taking advantage of the opportunity to be here in person if they can, or to make representation to theft own member when they can about a matter that’s going to be debated in here. My major point is that we have to work harder at making this chamber relevant.

I feel very strongly about opposing this resolution, primarily for that reason. It’s not just that it sets up another committee, that isn’t the major reason. It’s the nature of the topic to which this committee would he addressing itself. Nothing is more public than this room, nothing should be used in an open visible way more than this room.

It’s incumbent upon all of us, I think, to vote against the resolution and against the establishment of this committee; but we should urge our respective House leaders to find the time, be it in the fall or in the spring -- the government is in the best position to make those timing decisions I believe -- to use this room effectively. I think the debate must he here, timing will be left to the government. The Premier is in the best position, I think, to judge those other sensitive matters he has to concern himself with, but not that it be done in a committee.

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

[5:45]

Mr. Nixon: I am interested to note there are so many members in the House at the present time, because, Mr. Speaker, you will recall when this debate began, when the mover addressed the House to begin with and the minister gave his objections, there were only about five people here. The minister was all alone; there may have been two or three NDPs, two or three Grits, and yourself or perhaps your assistant. The idea that we are now gathering a few people to my mind is appalling in that they are just coming in to stand up to block the possibility of having this committee.

The member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) said every member here should get up and vote against it. It’s certainly his right to urge his colleagues and those of us on this side so to do, but surely if we had an opportunity to vote for it so those members who have taken part in the debate and feel strongly about this would at least be able to affect the outcome, then that’s democracy and that’s healthy.

The member for Armourdale was saying if we just have a debate in the House in the fail we can have people come in here and make submissions to us. Maybe that’s so.

The rules don’t permit it but the member for Lakeshore was talking about Eugene Forsey and Max Cohen and John Robarts and others. They are not going to sit in some funny little chair arid speak to us in this House.

We should have a committee. We can go to the Amethyst Room, Mr. Speaker, the room you named. It’s fully equipped with all of the electronic devices so the views of not only the members but of our learned and able witnesses would go on file.

The thing I fear, when I look at the speech from the throne, on page 12 of Votes and Proceedings number one, is that it says: “The government places a caution unequivocally before the citizens of this province and of Canada as a whole: namely, that Ontario will not negotiate sovereignty association with the government of Quebec.” I think everybody here would be prepared to support that. But that debate, when we come to it in the fall -- since it looks, from the presence of the government House leader, with that glassy eye he sometimes affects that they are going to stand up and stonewall this blooming thing -- that debate is going to be restrictive. It is going to be, capital “P”, political, in the sense the Premier and his colleagues will get up with a ringing denunciation of sovereignty association and the separatist movement without talking about, as we all should, the positive aspects about what we, as a province, together with our sister provinces and the government of Canada, should be doing about national unity.

Really, the only other thing mentioned here of any interest is that the Conservatives, as well as all of us, are in favour of the preservation of the monarch as the head of state. I can hear ringing speeches about that, if the debate takes place here rather than in a committee where we are able to assure the monarch of our continuing love and support but at the same time look at the distribution of powers, and even recommend that the government of Canada take over some responsibility for natural resources dealing with energy.

Why should the government of Canada have total control of Ontario’s uranium when the other energy resources at other provincial levels are under provincial control, and to the benefit of provincial treasuries? I am speaking as an individual in this, but I have put this forward many times. I am afraid if the debate progresses, as it appears the Conservative Party through its numbers is going to insist in a few moments it will, I am afraid that the debate will in fact simply become a rehash, a rethrashing of the old political straw we have heard from that side so often.

No wonder constitutional debates are boring. No wonder no one comes into this House or into the galleries or anywhere else to observe and take part in a constitutional debate, since the leaders in the debate from the government side simply insist on going through that old refrain about the preservation of a strong central government, preservation of a union which insures free movement and the preservation of the monarchy. My God, let’s get down to discussing what we can do as a province, and in my view the leading province, to assist our fellow citizens in Quebec and in Alberta and elsewhere to a strengthening of Canadian unity with the reapportionment of powers, the patriation of our constitution and a move forward. Let’s get away from the rhetoric, let’s get down to an examination which is going to be meaningful and significant.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not have a committee review of the type envisaged by the member for Lakeshore, then what we will do in this House will be a farce. It may be a two-day farce in the fall, but in fact it will simply be a beating of the breast in order to make some political point with Quebec as they approach their vote.

We could do something far better than that, and I would certainly admonish my friends on the Conservative side to at least have a free vote here. This is supposed to be private members’ hour. I resent the honourable members getting up and sort of stating government policy in that respect. Let’s listen to the arguments and let’s vote as private members, and let’s vote to have a committee on national unity.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken of Bill 106:

Auld, Ashe, Bernier, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gregory, Grossman, Henderson, Johnson, J., Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Maeck, McCaffrey, McNeil, Newman, W., Parrott, Pope, Ramsay, Rollins, Rotenberg, Sterling, Taylor, G., Villeneuve, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 31.

NATIONAL UNITY

The following members having objected ‘by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 23:

Auld, Ashe, Baetz, Bernier, Cureatz, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Gregory, Grossman, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacBeth, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Newman, W., Parrott, Pope, Ramsay, Rollins, Rotenberg, Sterling, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 35.

ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the provisions of section 70a(3) of the Legislative Assembly Act, I have laid on the table a report from the commission on election contributions and expenses.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.