Journal des débats 1982-juin-25 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all honourable members to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery His Excellency Paraskevas Avgerinos, Minister of Health and Social Services of Greece.

OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the ninth report of the Ombudsman. For the information of all honourable members, their copies are in their post office boxes.

DEATH OF GORDON LAWS

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of the Legislature and many others at Queen's Park who worked with Gordon Laws throughout the years will be saddened to learn that Mr. Laws passed away on Sunday after a lengthy illness.

The death occurred after Mr. Laws's retirement from the Ontario public service and a career which spanned more than 25 years. During that time he earned the esteem and admiration of all as he directed the provision of accommodation and support services here in the Legislative Building on behalf of my ministry, the Ministry of Government Services.

I want to extend my personal condolences, as well as the sincere sympathy of the members of this House, to the wife and family of Gordon Laws in this time of bereavement.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself and my colleagues entirely with the remarks of the Minister of Government Services. Those of us who have worked in this place know only too well the tireless efforts that the late Mr. Laws made on our behalf. His responsibilities in allocating the space in this Legislative Building were made very difficult on occasion by some of us and he always, I thought, handled the ever-sensitive politicians with great charm and great effect.

I want to express on behalf of myself and my colleagues our sincerest appreciation and condolences to his family.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join, not only as a representative of the New Democratic Party caucus but also in a very personal way, in extending my sympathy to the family. Gordie Laws was a person whom I found most easy to work with. He was a very dedicated public servant, and perhaps in this day and age we should remember that there are people like Gordie Laws throughout the public service of this province who work in very difficult circumstances.

As the previous speaker has indicated, he tried to sort out the roaring egos of various members of the Legislature, in this case with regard to office rights. Gordie Laws always did that with extreme courtesy and good humour. If there was a way to get something accomplished that was legitimate, Gordon Laws would find it. We all miss him very much.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

INMATE WORK PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that negotiations for a trout processing and bulk packaging operation on the property of the Guelph Correctional Centre are nearing completion. The plant will employ inmate workers and is the latest of several similar partnerships between this ministry and private enterprise which benefit our programs and the taxpayers.

Under the arrangement with the Ontario Trout Producers Co-operative Ltd., which we hope to have finalized within three weeks, fresh trout will be eviscerated, washed, bulk-packaged and stored in refrigerated areas by inmates. The co-op will provide supervision, the necessary tools and protective clothing.

Inmates will be paid the current wages for such work. Initially, six inmates will be employed. If the operation proves profitable to the co-op, the number of employees could be increased to include private citizens and more inmates.

The processing operation will utilize 6,000 square feet in a building which once housed the ministry cannery operation, now located at the Burtch Correctional Centre in Brantford. Inmate labour will be used to refurbish the building, with the co-op providing the materials. The work includes pouring a new concrete floor, repainting the interior and installing live-fish holding tanks. The co-op will also install a storage freezer.

The Guelph site was selected partly because of the presence on the property of two spring-fed lakes, from which fresh water can be drawn for the holding tanks, and the existence of effluent pretreatment facilities originally set up to serve the cannery and an abattoir.

The processing plant will benefit Ontario trout farmers, inmates and taxpayers. The trout farmers feel the plant will help them to gain a larger part of the trout food market in Ontario, which currently relies heavily on imported fish. The co-op will pay rental for a government-owned building which previously has not been fully utilized.

Inmates who work in the plant will contribute from their wages to their room and board, and will pay taxes and help support their families, thereby keeping them off the welfare rolls.

The trout processing project, although smaller in size, is similar in program structure to the meat packing operation already operating on the Guelph property. This successful venture between the ministry and a private business firm has been in operation for eight years and employs approximately 40 inmates as well as citizens from the Guelph community.

I am pleased that with the country's present economic climate, this government through my ministry is able to participate in an arrangement that will help the small business sector, in this case the trout farmers of Ontario, to more successfully market their product.

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of privilege this morning that concerns me very much. I returned home to my riding last night to attend a high school graduation. When I picked up my local newspaper, I saw on the front page a story titled, "PC Labels Cooke a Retard." There may be some smiling faces around, but this morning I had a call from a father of a mentally handicapped child in my riding who really felt upset about this comment being made. My constituency office has been flooded with calls this morning.

I might point out that the story is a result of a comment made in this Legislature on Wednesday night by the acting government House leader (Mr. Gregory). I understand the acting government House leader withdrew the remark that night, but then the story goes on to say, "Mr. Gregory, appointed to act to be the go-between between the majority Conservatives and the other House leaders when Wells went into hospital for a coronary bypass operation, said he did not regret the comment."

Because of the large number of complaints and because of the unfortunate comment that was made in the Legislature, I ask that the minister make it very clear in the Legislature this morning that in fact he did withdraw the remark. I think he owes myself, my constituents and the members of the Legislature an apology.

10:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, as you know, after having made the statement, I expressed to you my regrets and withdrew the statement. If the member for Windsor-Riverside will consult with his House leader, he will know that is so.

At the House leaders' meeting yesterday, I also expressed my feelings on the matter. I cannot be responsible for the story that appeared in the Windsor paper. I think that in consultation with his House leader, the honourable member will realize that I have extended regret for having made the statement. I have nothing more to say.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to all honourable members that perhaps this will serve as an example of the use of intemperate language in the assembly. It is unfortunate that this type of thing happens, and I think we all must use common sense and caution with regard to the language that is used in this chamber.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES AMENDMENT BILLS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce a bill to amend the Agricultural Societies Act, which will raise the maximum government grant towards cash prizes at agricultural exhibitions to $2,000 from $1,500 annually. Agricultural societies, which organize fairs around the province, currently award more than $2 million a year in prize money to exhibitors of livestock, fruits and vegetables, other agricultural products and home crafts.

The $1,500 limit was set more than 20 years ago. Since then, costs have escalated sharply as a result of inflation and the growing number of exhibitors. Nearly two thirds of the 230 societies now are receiving the maximum grant, which means they must absorb the full cost of higher payments to prize winners. By raising the maximum grant by $500, the amendment will better assist societies to finance agricultural exhibitions. Current government expenditures under this program are about $300,000, which likely will increase to $400,000 under the new ceiling.

Other amendments proposed in the bill will simplify the paperwork involved in dealing with government under the act. Both the increase in grant levels and the procedural changes have been advocated by the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies.

I also will be introducing a bill to amend the Horticultural Societies Act. This bill has two major purposes. First, it will permit the formation of new horticultural societies in local municipalities having a population of 25,000 or more. Second, it will incorporate all societies.

Under the present law, only municipalities with more than 100,000 people may have more than one horticultural society. That restriction was imposed when local boundaries were far different from what they are today. With the grouping of small municipalities into larger units, the provision has effectively prevented a number of communities from having their own societies.

The amendment, which has been requested by the Ontario Horticultural Association, will permit two societies in municipalities of 25,000 people or more, and will allow an additional society for each additional 25,000 people.

The 250 societies which exist at the moment, with a combined membership of 60,000 Ontarians, perform laudable service to their communities through landscaping, beautification and other horticultural projects. The provincial government assists these endeavours through grants totalling about $200,000 annually.

The second major amendment, which incorporates the societies, will afford a measure of protection to members of these nonprofit community service organizations. The changes will enable these community initiatives to continue to flourish.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. It concerns a couple of things, not the least of which is the statement the Treasurer has made repeatedly that, as he imagines it, the principal thrust of his May 13 budget is and was job creation.

Undoubtedly the Treasurer will recall that some days ago his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) stood proudly in his place to announce that Sanyo Machine Works of Japan would be establishing a plant in the great town of Elmira in north Waterloo.

Mindful of the fact that, according to statistics, there were approximately 400,000 Ontarians out of work in May 1982, and knowing of his recent interest in things Japanese, was the Treasurer aware that the nine-job project in Elmira, announced with such fanfare by the Minister of Industry and Trade, was going to begin with nine people all right, but that eight of them would be Japanese nationals working in a management function at that establishment?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the type of question my friend is asking would be better directed to my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade when he is here, because he deals with those matters.

The honourable member was in Japan recently. I believe he used the services of our government while he was there to become acquainted with some of the things there. I believe he found that a worthwhile experience. I hope that during his trip to China he also had some experience and picked up a few points along the way.

Mr. Bradley: Both paid for by himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think one would recognize in visiting a country like Japan that we have a major opportunity to encourage them to start procuring materials in Canada and to get involved in joint ventures in Canada. I suggest to my friend that one of the most important functions of our government is to welcome that type of investment, and not to criticize nine people --

Mr. Kerrio: Nobody is criticizing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not every company starts big; most firms start in a small way and grow. If in the beginning it requires some technical experts to come to this country to set up the company and to train people who can take over those positions, so be it. Canadians have done that around the world when we have sold our expertise. I suggest that other countries do, too. In the long run we will be the beneficiaries if we create a welcome attitude for them.

Mr. Conway: I certainly appreciate the Treasurer's answer, but he will undoubtedly appreciate our frustration at having been given only part of the goods that day some weeks ago when the Minister of Industry and Trade stood in his place. It might have been more helpful, since this government's stated aim is to create jobs to alleviate the burden of 400,000 unemployed --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Conway: Since the Treasurer has indicated that training is going to be an important part of all this, is he aware that the manuals that are going to be used in that north Waterloo establishment are going to be printed in Japanese only? Will he indicate whether and when the government of Ontario is going to embark upon a Japanese-language program for Ontarians in that part of the province who might like to work in that plant? If it is not, can he indicate more definitively than his somewhat less than forthcoming colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade just how it is, between now and the millennium, that this Elmira project is going to add significantly to the job opportunities for Ontarians?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend talked of his frustrations. I want to say that since the election of 1981, I do not know of any member on that side of the House who has evidenced more frustration and pique than himself. I do not think that question did it; it has just been a function of his life since the date last year when we beat them. That has been one of the constant, ongoing hurts.

I am very concerned about the 400,000 unemployed in this province. But I am also very pleased that in the month of May, by actual count, 109,000 more people were at work at the end of the month than at the beginning of the month. That is by actual count. On a seasonally adjusted basis, it was much lower, but it was still positive.

If the Japanese use, as they always have, their ability to penetrate markets by providing information in the language of the marketplace and by adapting their product to the conditions of the marketplace, I suggest that it will not be long before all those manuals are in excellent English.

I also caution the member that at this particularly delicate time in our relationships with Japan, a time when they really are considering offshore investments, we on both sides of this House, in the interest of jobs in this province, should not sound too critical.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not sound too critical, but surely the Treasurer is embarrassed when his colleague gets up to make a major announcement that he has created nine jobs in Ontario, and today he finds out that eight of those nine jobs are not going to Ontarians. Is that not a shameful kind of job creation in this province?

Mr. McClellan: It's a fraud.

Mr. Foulds: It is a fraud and misleading. Surely it is about time the Treasurer and his government brought in legislation and tough conditions so that when any firm invests in and creates a firm in Canada it has content in terms of the manufacture of components here and content in terms of jobs. Surely that is not asking too much.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, Ontario, led by the Premier (Mr. Davis), myself and the Minister of Industry and Trade, has very clearly let the federal government know that we want a higher Canadian content in products such as automobiles sent to this country and that we are going to see that it happens. We are getting co-operation these days from the federal government in that matter; it has slowed down the entry of Japanese cars to our country while we negotiate better deals, and I am not ashamed.

If the honourable member went to the Middle East and looked at the projects that are going on there, he would find hundreds of Canadian engineers there at this moment. They are taking our expertise there and training people in those lands. That, I assume, is what the Japanese are doing here. There are very limited numbers of people with certain skills in high-technology areas. Only by bringing in experts can one produce one's own home-trained ones. Let us give them the chance. I am not the least bit embarrassed to see any company come to this country. We welcome them.

Mr. Conway: Do I take it from the Treasurer's second answer to my question that the policy of his government vis-à-vis small business is that the way to start a small business in Ontario is to start a big one and wait? Is that the position?

Since the Sanyo Machine Works contract was made 11 years ago, in 1971 -- so we are told by ministry officials -- and since the Treasurer was anxious to draw out my recent experience, I want to ask him whether he could take this opportunity, since I do not believe he has done so in the past three weeks, to express himself on what public benefits might accrue from his publicly funded trans-Pacific venture of late May? Is there some announcement that might be forthcoming five or 10 years hence, saying it might add a job or two somewhere across this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously the member has not done what I have done for a good part of my life. I have been a salesman, an unashamed salesman. I have learned that it takes quite a while to sell some customers. You do not just sit back home on your fanny and wait for them. You have to go out and sell. That is what I was doing in Japan, unashamedly. I was selling Ontario, and we will get results.

Mr. Martel: That's what Stan Randall used to tell us. You are a super salesman. You have been selling this country out for years.

Mr. Foulds: Ever heard of Death of a Salesman?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: I do not know what kind of mendicant or itinerant preacher could match the Treasurer's distinguished working career. I do not profess to try.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: I certainly will proceed with the second question, but not to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who, by virtue of last evening's performance, is undoubtedly getting all geared up for Sunday's Queen's Plate.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: If the starter begins with a prayer, the Attorney General will win the day.

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Mr. Conway: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Health, who was here a moment ago.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is not in his chair.

Mr. Conway: In the absence of the putative Premier, the Minister of Health, I will turn to the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself.

An hon. member: Here he is. Here is the Minister of Health.

Mr. Conway: You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, how I want to accommodate the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will rename this Hart House.

Mr. Conway: I have been called worse by better.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wasn't calling you anything.

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Health will know that on December 4, 1981, no less a person than the Premier stated that as part of the business-oriented new development plan announced by his colleague, the now Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), the new hospital surcharges on private and semi-private beds are not and would not become user charges, since these beds are "by and large an insured service for 99 per cent of the people who have private or semi-private rooms."

Given that the government has just approved premium increases of between 21 to 65 per cent for the Blue Cross carrier, largely as a result of the new increases allowed and encouraged under the BOND program, has the government not imposed new user charges on more than 800,000 Blue Cross subscribers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, no, we have not. We would make the point that these are not user charges; they are an attempt to allow some opportunities for hospitals to bring more money into the system. The net effect is that the majority of people who will be paying those moneys into the system will be those who can afford to pay that extra money.

The sum and substance of it is a question of whether it denies access to the system to any citizen of Ontario. Those who currently buy Blue Cross for that coverage should be aware that the legislation in place in Ontario entitles them to whatever accommodation they need in whatever facility they require at no cost, if their physician so indicates. For those who are making the choice to pay the extra premiums to acquire the extra coverage, it is for services which they do not specifically need but which they prefer to have. There is quite a substantial difference.

Mr. Conway: Undoubtedly the Minister of Health, in these dying hours of Senior Citizens' Week, which is being widely advertised by the propaganda arm of this government under the banner title "We have a lot to share," will be making a special effort to tell the 200,000 seniors who subscribe to Blue Cross that these are really not significant matters vis-à-vis their health coverage.

Is the minister aware that, of all the Blue Cross users, those who will be undergoing the largest single premium increase are the seniors, who will see their rates go from $6.18 to $10.20 a month, an increase of something in the order of 65 per cent? Are we to take this action by this government as a concrete indication that these 200,000 seniors have more than just an average lot to share?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The honourable member will be interested to know that when we were in Ottawa discussing user fees at the health ministers' conference, even Monique Bégin -- and the member will remember her from when he used to be a Liberal -- even she acknowledged --

Mr. Kerrio: You will remember her when she straightens you out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member will remember her again soon if she does better at the polls. He should not rush to judgement.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On Tuesday, the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) may be a Liberal again. Who can tell?

In any case, the federal minister is quite properly concerned to make sure that throughout the country, user fees do not operate as a barrier to health care services. It is something I feel strongly about, and I agree with her. Even she acknowledged that certain aspects of the BOND program, with which she was familiar, were not tantamount to a user fee.

That is important because those who have studied the system in depth, and her civil servants are quite capable and have studied it in depth, have agreed that the definition of a user fee and what is and what is not a barrier is a complicated thing. One of the problems we have is that when something innovative is introduced, a year or so is required to work out all its implications. I think there will be some adjustments required after a year.

Understandably, political process being what it is, there are certain perceptions that our seniors and others have about the system which make them believe there are these barriers that fog or hide the fact that they do have certain rights under the legislation to acquire the accommodation they have always been entitled to, whenever they need it, without paying one cent more.

10:30 a.m.

One of the things we do have to grapple with, and I say this as a minister who has been grappling with these kinds of communications problems with the public in three ministries, is to get the realities of the legislation through to the public.

I respect your right to draw these concerns to the public's attention about the problems inherent in a new business-oriented new development program; there will be some. The flip-side of that coin is that the public does not understand nor is particularly aware of their rights under the legislation.

My only fear is that if I begin to take out advertisements in the newspapers, perhaps the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) will rise in the House and complain that I am doing too much government advertising. I might choose to run that risk, anyway, in order to get around the problems raised by, as the Premier (Mr. Davis) would put it, "your Hart House rhetoric," but that is an understandable part of the process. I know the member will help me in explaining these matters.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could offer some advice to two of my constituents.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Get a new member.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A very funny answer, but when the minister hears about the problems these people have he may not think that witticism is the best response.

Margaret Smith of my riding, who is a cancer victim and on a basic pension, has been hospitalized three times in the last few months. She had Blue Cross coverage but, each time, was put into a ward because there were no beds in semi-private rooms available. She has asked me whether she should renew her Blue Cross coverage at this point because of the special needs of a cancer patient like herself, an older woman, even though she cannot afford it and has no guarantee of getting a bed in a semi-private room.

And what about Mrs. Ruth Lunel, whose husband has been in Scarborough General Hospital over the last number of months and who has just been billed several hundred dollars over what her Blue Cross will cover for semi-private because the hospital says that their costs are higher than that? What is the minister's advice to those two people?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My advice would be to refer them to the Public Hospitals Act, section 31 --

Mr. McClellan: Who enforces that?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot be sure but perhaps the member and his constituents are not aware of this--

Mr. Foulds: Why have you got your arms crossed? You are very defensive on this one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tell your acting leader to take this matter seriously, Richard.

The member asked what advice I would have for his constituents. I am sure he has already informed his constituents that section 31, and I will read it to you, would give them the right to acquire whatever accommodation they require in that hospital, in preferred accommodation if they so require -- all that needs to happen is that the attending physician indicate that they require that preferred accommodation -- without any extra charge whatsoever. The hospital does not have the option but the obligation to provide that preferred accommodation under the legislation of the province.

Mr. Conway: Appreciating, as I always do, the partisan introduction to the minister's answers, I just want to say that the minister will know from having single-handedly disembowelled the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his hospital policy that these are difficult issues. I can certainly appreciate how he would have a special knowledge of that.

Can the minister indicate whether he has had any discussions with his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) as to whether or not this is going to be the pattern? Can he indicate on behalf of the government whether he has had any discussions with this insurer or with any others to see what we are going to face across the entire sector?

Can he, now or later, indicate just how it is that the Premier did not confuse, if not much worse, the public of this province six months ago when he indicated that the BOND plan would not be a user program because it was all insured? The rates have gone up. For seniors, they have gone up by 65 per cent and it strikes me that is a significant additional burden by any description and a user charge by any objective standard.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not take the time of the House to repeat all three: My assurance, the opinion of the member's former colleague, Monique Bégin and the legislation which affirms that is not a user charge.

Second, yes I have had some communication with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) on this matter.

Third, we are going to be speaking with the Ontario Hospital Association as the year progresses to analyse the history of BOND through this year. As members know, the OHA also runs Blue Cross and it will give us an opportunity to review exactly what the implications have been.

I would be less than honest if I did not indicate to the member in all fairness that I was concerned about to what extent that rather large increase in Blue Cross coverage was attributable to the BOND program. I am not sure that a good portion of that is attributable to the BOND program because if one looks at the history of what has happened, not many hospitals have increased their preferred versus nonpreferred combination, nor have they increased it very much.

I do not think there is a single hospital that has increased its preferred accommodation anywhere close to 65 per cent. They tend to have been figures that are far, far lower than that. That is why I really want an opportunity to look at the experience of BOND at the end of the year.

I cannot resist closing the way the acting leader opened this morning and just saying my honourable colleague does not look like someone who has been disembowelled. He is the Treasurer of our party flourishing well under a fine budget. The man the members over there disembowelled in their caucus is in the Science Council of Canada. I bow to them when it comes to disembowelling.

MALVERN SOIL CONTAMINATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. I wonder if the minister can explain as briefly as possible why the contaminated radioactive soil in the backyards of the families at Malvern in Scarborough is still there when the urinalysis of children of that area released today show levels as high as that of a worker in a uranium processing plant?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member knows that one of the principal reasons that situation has not yet been remedied is that the primary responsibility has in the past, continues in the present and presumably will continue in the future, to be that of the federal government.

However, under the circumstances, we in this government seeing the situation as it was and is, and the apparent inability or unwillingness of the federal government to do anything about it, undertook to assume some responsibility on their behalf in terms of attempting to move the soil.

I think the history of the situation is something that is known to the member in terms of the court actions that have been taken in the past and that have impaired the ability of the federal government to act. We are still actively working on it and I hope we will shortly have a solution.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us, since it is virtually impossible to keep children from playing in their own backyards, that it is at least his responsibility to give us a commitment that the soil will be moved and stored safely before the ground freezes this coming winter?

Hon. Mr. Norton: That certainly would be our intention. I cannot give any absolute assurances because I do not know what is going to happen tomorrow, a week from now or even in the next hour, I suppose.

Given the desire of some people in our society to frustrate our efforts, who knows?

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, given the very serious nature of this problem for those people in that part of Metropolitan Toronto; given the fact that he is Minister of the Environment and that this government has had a long-standing commitment to the nuclear option and its attendant responsibility; and given the fact that this Legislature's select committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs pointed to what he has not done in the past, can he as Minister of the Environment, on behalf of this government, which heretofore has done nothing but wash its hands of a responsibility which is at least to coordinate, indicate what, specifically, he has done and what specific commitments he is prepared to give to the parents and children in that particular part of Scarborough that action will taken along the lines suggested by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don't you in your pompous style sit there and accuse me of washing my hands. Mr. Speaker, that material would be out of McClure Crescent today if a week or two ago the federal minister had had the guts to say, "Yes" when I requested that he reopen Chalk River. And would the member for Renfrew North support reopening Chalk River on a one-shot basis? Would the member have the guts to support reopening Chalk --

Mr. Conway: What are we paying you for? Why don't you resign if you cannot do anything?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Renfrew North to contain himself while the minister answers his question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member is aware of the location of Chalk River. If he would like to see something done about that soil tomorrow, he could stand up here in the House now and make a commitment that he will support the Honourable Marc Lalonde in the reopening for one occasion only of Chalk River.

Mr. Conway: We have taken bloody enough at Chalk River; you guys can take your share. And you can quote me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have had your opportunity.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not understand that, while it is all very well for him to point the finger of blame at the federal government and at the honourable member who asked the supplementary, and while it is all very well for him to be shouting back and forth and then grinning after the exchanges, does he not understand -- and I am looking directly at the minister --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Does he not understand that he is a member of the Ontario-Canada waste management committee? His government signed that agreement several years ago, and it is his responsibility to come up with a solution through that committee for the storage of low-level radioactive waste. Why will he not take that responsibility and work through that committee to find a solution rather than wave fingers back and forth here in the House when the children of those families are playing in radioactive soil about which he is doing nothing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure all honourable members of the House that we are attempting to do something and we will do something. However, the pointing of fingers is not insignificant. The point of the matter is that here is a member who was ranting and raging in righteousness across the House, and at the same time, when I pointed out one of the possible alternatives, he hastily said, "Not in my backyard."

Mr. Kerrio: Who caused it in the first place?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We are trying our very best. I know the solution to the problem in a general sense. It is something that is going to require the co-operation of both federal and provincial governments, and we have been seeking that. However, as recently as a week or a week and a half ago, perhaps, in a conversation I had with a federal minister urging that we co-operate, the response I got was, "Well, I will watch with interest to see how successful you are." That was the extent of the co-operation. That does not mean we are quitting; we are still working at it. But it does mean that it looks as if they are going to let us do everything on our own.

GENDRON INDUSTRIES INC. SHUTDOWN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister inform the House what action he is taking to avoid the impending loss of 125 jobs at Gendron Industries Inc. in Toronto? As I am sure the minister is aware, that firm, which manufactures baby carriages and strollers, is in receivership and the receiver is about to sell off the assets, including the dies in the plant, which will mean the plant will close forever and the jobs will disappear. What steps is the minister prepared to take to attempt to delay the sale of those assets and dies so that alternatives for saving the plant can be found?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter is at present under study by the legal department of the ministry to see just what we might be able to do to assist.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us, if his legal department finds there needs to be additional legislation brought in, if he will do it before the end of this session so that the $1,000 he has put into the feasibility study that is being carried out jointly by his ministry, the federal government and the Steelworkers, will have some possibility of success? Will he at least bring in legislation to stop the sale of the assets of that company until the offer to buy into the company, made by the workers, gets real consideration?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am quite cognizant of the seriousness of the problem, but I cannot assure the honourable member we would take the step of legislation.

Mr. Foulds: Since there seems to be an agreement between the union, some of the production and management people in the plant and the Department of Employment and Immigration that the plant could be and is successful and viable, and since there appears to be information that the previous management used it as a cash cow, milking it dry for other ventures, does the minister not think this company would be a prime candidate for the government's buy-back policy as announced in the speech from the throne?

I quote: "The current economic downturn has led to a number of plant closures and bankruptcies. In order to enhance the chances of saving such companies, the government will attempt to determine which companies can be saved through our highly successful buy-back program." Does the minister not think this plant is a prime candidate? Does he not think that should be done before July 1, when it will be a fait accompli that the plant will close if he does not take action?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I assure the honourable member that everything possible that can be done is being done at the present time.

INCO DISPUTE

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a new question to the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware of the controversial news release issued by Inco Metals on June 23, indicating that further measures to reduce production and costs will be taken throughout its operations. Included in the measures is a further extension to October 3, 1982, of previously announced shutdowns in its operations in Ontario. Would the minister agree that bad-faith bargaining existed on behalf of the company, when it withheld such important company policy relating to employees' welfare from the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could give a bit of the history and background. Two weeks ago today, I chaired a meeting with representatives of the company and representatives of the union, at which time the management people laid out the extent of the problems in the market. I am referring to the world market as far as Inco prices and Inco production is concerned. The problems being experienced by Inco are widespread around the world.

At that time, the management officials pointed out to the union officials that there would have to be a further layoff, when the holiday period at the end of August was over, which would probably stretch to September 3. At that time, they also indicated there was a strong possibility the layoff to September 3 would have to be extended if market conditions continued to deteriorate and that they were monitoring the situation on a day to day basis. Apparently, the market conditions deteriorated and 10 days later Inco announced a further extended layoff until October.

I think it is relevant and significant that at the same time they announced that Inco's layoff would extend to October 3, they were also announcing a two-month layoff in the Thompson, Manitoba, operations of the company.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Haggerty: The adversity that follows this company announcement will deny employees the right of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. Would the minister agree that some measure of redress in the present labour dispute is now warranted? Would he agree that the company's integrity at the bargaining table demands a full inquiry either by the Legislature or by some other body concerning management's handling of this current labour dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There has been a very intensive effort by my ministry this week to get the parties back together. That is the prime objective and I am sure the member will agree with that.

The bargaining committees from Sudbury and Port Colborne have been in Toronto all this week, at our request. Meetings have been held almost nonstop each and every day between ministry officials and the bargaining committee of the union. Further meetings have been held each day with ministry officials and management officials of Inco. One such meeting is going on at the present time and I am anxiously awaiting its outcome.

The point I am trying to make to the honourable member is that every effort is being made this week to get them back to some meaningful negotiations. I am sure the member will agree there is no sense in getting them back to the bargaining table if neither side is prepared to change its present stance. That, as frankly as I can put it, is the problem confronting us at the present time.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that Inco has at its disposal a way of resolving its problems concerning both cash flow and inventory: namely, extended shutdown? Since the extended shutdown already announced will go part way to resolving both their cash flow and inventory problems, that should not preclude them from countering with a decent and improved offer to the workers in Sudbury from the last one they made.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I was naturally disappointed at the announcement of a further layoff and earlier this week expressed this opinion to the honourable member privately. The announcement came right in the middle of extended efforts to bring the parties together again. On the other hand, I do not think it would have been practical or ethical to bring the parties back to the table without that knowledge having been put forward.

I am reluctant to say too much more at this time because, as I said earlier, there are some very sensitive meetings going on at this moment. It is hoped that they will continue throughout the day.

ADVERTISING OF SALES TAX HEARINGS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the acting government House leader. He will know that in the resources development committee last night a decision was made, partly because of his intervention, to do no advertising of the hearings on Bill 115, the retail sales tax bill.

I would like to ask the acting House leader: when a committee has been set up to hear representation on a very important part of the budget that has impact over the entire province, does he not think there should be fair representation before that committee from all parts of Ontario, not just geographically, but from groups and individuals as well? How does the minister think he will achieve that if he does not advertise in different parts of the province so everyone has equal access to this committee?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is aware that when I attended that meeting last night I did not play a part in it. I think he will recall that I did not say anything except to answer a question regarding a motion.

The committee, in a very democratic fashion, voted to proceed as it did, supported by the Liberal Party. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was there. There was no time to have advertising. Because of the response to the committee so far, the members felt there were enough people to be heard from. As I recall last night's meeting, the great problem was how they were going to hear all the delegations which had already indicated their desire to come.

As to the member's comments about my participation in that, my only participation was in negotiating with the House leaders of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, and acceding to their requests as to the terms of reference of that committee. That was my sole responsibility.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the stickhandling House leader.

Does the minister not understand that at the time that agreement was made among the three House leaders, there was no indication of the enormous response there would be to the committee having public hearings in Ontario? Now that it is obvious that the committee will have great difficulty hearing everyone who has a right to be heard before that committee under the present setup, why will the government House leader not commence negotiations immediately with the two other House leaders to ensure that those hearings are extended?

Further, despite the fact that the Ontario Liberals filibustered as they did, and then voted not to advertise, why will the minister not take it upon himself now to see that people can have equal representation before that committee?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: As I mentioned earlier, my only participation on that committee was to accede to the agreement that was made among the three House leaders, and to accede totally to the request of the Liberal House leader as to the terms of reference of that committee. It was decided by the committee -- not by me -- with the support of the Liberal House leader, that there would be no advertising.

Having been at the meeting, as I was, the member would be aware that the Liberal Party, as well as the government party, supported the position that it was too late, and also unnecessary at this point, to advertise.

The co-operation of the third party extended to their saying that they will not even take part in the steering committee that was set up in a democratic fashion by the committee.

Mr. Foulds: Everybody should be heard, Bud.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I would not want to cause the acting leader of the New Democratic Party to have a seizure.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Conway: It is not a supplementary, it is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Kerrio: He cannot have another supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear the member.

Mr. Laughren: I am attempting to rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I did not mean I was attempting to rise; I was attempting to make a point of privilege. All this has caused me to lose my train of thought.

The acting House leader made the point that we were not going to serve on a steering committee. The reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the House leader --

Interjections.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it is a point of privilege.

The reason I make the point --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is really not a point

of privilege, as you well know.

Mr. Laughren: How do you know?

Mr. Speaker: Because you have led off into your point of privilege on a matter that is not.

Mr. Laughren: I will dispense with the lead-off.

Mr. Speaker: Then let us hear your point of privilege.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason that we are not taking part in the steering committee is just that we will not be part of restricting hearings --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the member for Renfrew North on a point of privilege.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, since my name has been brought into this and since I was party to the discussions last night, I feel it is important for me to state my position very quickly.

Mr. Laughren: Is this a question?

Mr. Conway: No, it is a point of privilege. I participated here, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Foulds: Vote for extended hearings.

Mr. Conway: I appreciate entirely the concerns of the members of the New Democratic Party. As a person of honour, I was under the impression that the agreement that I was part of last Thursday night involved a five- or six-day set of hearings to terminate by July 8, and I understood one of the agreed conditions to be that there would be no advertising.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither of those is a legitimate point of privilege.

11 a.m.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Ruprecht: I have a question for the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. I would like to bring to the Treasurer's attention a situation involving one of my constituents. On May 11 Mrs. deStein purchased and paid for various double-glazed windows as part of a comprehensive insulation program. Delivery of the windows, however, was arranged for a date in May subsequent to the introduction of the Treasurer's budget.

During the week of May 17 the supplier of the windows informed Mrs. deStein that her purchase was subject to a seven per cent sales tax even though she had paid on May 11, because the delivery followed introduction of the budget. The tax amounted to $130. Will the minister not concede that it is unfair and inequitable to compel Mrs. deStein to pay the tax in this case?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will refer that to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, let me continue and tell the minister what happened after we inquired with the department.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: Okay, supplementary. We had called the Ministry of Revenue, and the answer was, "While we do not necessarily agree with it, we have to administer it."

I ask the minister how, in good conscience, his government can in one breath urge the citizens of this province to "Conserve it, preserve it" while on the other hand scoffing, "We taxed it, you deserve it"?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: His poetry is as bad as some of his questions, Mr. Speaker. In any event, to get to the supplementary, unfortunately the honourable member has tried to cloud the principle on the basis of hanging his hat on conservation and the government's support of conservation, which it has shown in numerous ways in the last few years in helping to bring down the growth of demand for energy wastage in this province.

With regard to whether the tax is actually due or whether it is fair, in fact it is. Regardless of what the issue is -- in this case, of course, it is the windows -- if title did not pass on or before the date of the budget, then the tax is due and payable. In this case as described by the member, title did not pass -- in other words, delivery of the goods -- until after the date of the budget; in that case tax is payable, as it would be in every similar case; it has nothing to do with just windows.

CHILDREN'S DETENTION CENTRES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), my question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. Bradley: Good luck.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you.

Last December, the Minister of Community and Social Services was made aware of allegations by social services groups in northwestern Ontario regarding the fact that in the Patricia district it was becoming a regular practice that juveniles, native children especially, would be put into adult lockups in various communities around the district. A review by the Ontario Provincial Police estimated that in Pickle Lake 12 kids per year are put into adult lockups, in Sioux Lookout over 20 kids per year are put into adult lockups and in Red Lake they would not even hazard a guess as to how many there were.

Is the minister aware of this? Is she aware of how many children are being locked up in adult facilities because of the lack of observation and detention centres, except at those in Kenora? This matter has been raised, I would say, over the last number of years.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the numbers of children who would be in that position, but I will ask the responsible minister to provide that information to the honourable member.

Mr. McClellan: How many times has it been raised in your estimates?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As the member for Bellwoods has just interjected, the problems with detention centres have been raised any number of times in the minister's estimates over the last number of years. Can she find out from the Minister of Community and Social Services whether he has followed up this report to find out how many children were incarcerated last year in that area, and what steps he is going to take to counter that problem, given the lack of facilities in that region?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I reiterate that this was not brought up in my estimates, this year or last year. However, the minister responsible for looking after children in these cases is a very responsible minister who will have the interests of those children at heart. I am sure he is aware of the problems and I am sure he will be very pleased to bring the member his response when he is in the House.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, would the minister not agree that as long as the social development area keeps on taking a smaller and smaller portion of the budget each and every year, and also when the social development area has a decreasing amount of clout in the cabinet, it is extremely difficult for the government to keep on providing the necessary services in the social development area in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, there is not a word of truth in what the member is saying.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, do you recall that a few days ago the word "hypocrite" was put on the legislative index? I have great respect for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, but I wonder whether, given the index, her statement that, "There is not a word of truth in what the member is saying," might be something you would want to reflect upon and advise as to its parliamentary quality.

[Later]

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to have an opportunity to correct the record and to correct an erroneous impression that was left by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in response to a question asked by the member for Scarborough West.

She will recall and so will the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) that in my lead-off for those estimates, I took about 10 minutes to explain to both of them -- and I even drew attention to the fact the provincial secretary was here and that I appreciated she was here to listen to my comments -- the problems that were brought to members' attention here this morning. She even made notes while I was speaking about the social problems affecting native people in the Patricia area, particularly Pickle Lake. I did not mention the name of the community but the Minister of Northern Affairs nodded in assent when I said he would probably know it. The provincial secretary cannot deny that she had knowledge of the very things my friend the member for Scarborough West was concerned about.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, yes I did listen very carefully to the honourable member's comments that day. Yes, I have passed along that information. I am not responsible for the day-to-day operations within the ministry. I just wanted to indicate that it had not been raised in my estimates. Those were the only estimates I referred to.

NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment with respect to emissions of impurities into the Niagara River and the Great Lakes system. I know this is raised very frequently, but that still does not diminish the importance of the question. The minister met recently with Commissioner Flacke of New York state. Could he inform us just what is going on now, what has happened in, say, the last six months towards reducing the impurities entering our Great Lakes system and improving the water quality in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I will try to fill in roughly what has been done within that six-month time frame. I suppose one of the things that is most significant in this period, that is now beginning to get under way, is the work of upgrading the Niagara Falls New York waste water treatment plant. The Environmental Protection Agency has released some $4 or $5 million, I believe, and we are being credited with bringing that money up to New York state by virtue of the pressure we have been bringing to bear on the federal government of the United States.

That is a project that will probably take anywhere from 12 to 18 months to complete. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is carrying out a considerable amount of work on the examination of landfill sites. The great handicap with which it is faced is the lack of resources as a result of the fiscal policy of the federal government of the United States.

11:10a.m.

I suppose the work most directly related to what we will be involved in is the review of the permits for discharging effluent into the Niagara River. They are known as SPDES -- state pollution discharge elimination system -- permits. About 30 major ones are coming up for review this year on the American side. Our Niagara River team is already engaged in reviewing the existing permits. It is trying to determine as accurately as possible the content of the discharge and is trying to develop reasonable standards that ought to be achieved. We will be intervening wherever necessary and requesting hearings on the review of the SPDES permits.

There is ongoing work on the Niagara River. There is an American and Canadian Niagara River working group, with representatives of federal, state and provincial governments on both sides, that is working continuously at trying to complete a detailed inventory of all the chemicals that may have been discharged into the river, and to develop a longer-term strategy with respect to reducing those discharges.

There are many areas in which work is ongoing. I reiterate my conviction that New York state is deeply concerned about the problem. I wish the same level of concern and an appropriate level of funding was manifested at the federal level in the United States. Then I would be sleeping a lot more easily.

Mr. Kennedy: Is Ottawa making representations to Washington to let its concern and our concern be known so that perhaps it will come around to seeing the seriousness of this and releasing some funds towards cleanup?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I think it is fair to say that. I suppose the rough breakdown in terms of involvement is that Ottawa has had significant diplomatic communications with the federal government in the United States on this subject.

There is one other thing. Within the past week I have been in communication with Ms. Anne Gorsuch, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, urging that funding from the Superfund in the United States, which was set up to address problems relating to closed landfill sites, be freed up specifically for application to some of the problem areas on the Niagara frontier.

I hope the Canadian government will support it and I am sure it will. New York state has already been priorizing the sites it feels are the most serious contributors to the problem in terms of requesting funding from the Superfund to get on with a more meaningful cleanup.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I attended the organizational meeting along with some of the people from the ministry on that international committee for the cleaning up of the Niagara River. I do not recall ever getting an invitation to go back.

The question I raise is, have the minister's people met on an ongoing basis or are we leaving it to those people who say they are doing some cleanup without really knowing, and without really having meetings from time to time with some of the organizations that have shown a keen interest in the ongoing commitment, such as Operation Clean and those citizens' organizations that have really pushed and prodded government off its -- whatever one might want to call it, into doing something about the cleanup?

I do not recall them having another meeting since the organizational meeting as it related to the people who were invited there to tell what it was about. Does the minister recall a subsequent meeting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there has ever been a meeting since that involving members of the public. I do not send out the invitations. I think the member can draw his own conclusions as to why he might not have been invited back. I do not think the member wore out his welcome in one meeting, but sometimes even one's best friends will not tell one.

Mr. Kerrio: If I had known about it I would have been there uninvited.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is not what I was implying. I can assure the member there have been working meetings of the group. I can also assure him our representation on that committee is made up of very accessible people. I am sure the representatives of Operation Clean or any of the other interested groups can either call members of that committee or make contact with our team co-ordinator for the Niagara River, Mr. Crabtree. He is a very accessible individual. I know he has been in communication with interest groups. Anyone who has any questions as to the progress would get an immediate update if he just picked up the phone and called Peter Crabtree.

PETITIONS

TAX ON FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition. Because the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is part of the cabinet that imposed the unfair sales tax, this petition was delivered to me for presentation in the Legislature by Joan Draper of Niagara-on-the-Lake and signed by 85 citizens, almost all of them from Niagara-on-the-Lake.

"We the undersigned women of Ontario who are all of voting age demand that the tax be removed from sanitary napkins and tampons."

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have 1,000 additional names on the petition I presented the other day, which reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council: We the undersigned oppose the extension of the sales tax introduced by the Ontario government in the May 13, 1982, budget." Some of these names are from Sarnia and Chatham and the balance from Windsor.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 163, An Act to amend the Agricultural Societies Act.

Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Sterling, first reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Horticultural Societies Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Epp, first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

11:20 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic

Act:

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Municipal Act in a number of ways. It really entails housekeeping and minor amendments to the act.

It will remove the ability to establish improvement districts and counties. It will provide that a declaration of vacancy from a county council constitutes a declaration of vacancy by the local council as well.

This bill will also clarify that all members present at a council meeting are to vote on a recorded vote. Those who fail to vote will be deemed to have voted in the negative. The bill provides the municipalities flexibility in issuing debentures. It enables a municipality to contract out its staff as well as its equipment.

The bill will require a local board to submit to the treasurer of the municipality a statement of remuneration and expenses paid by the board. It will expand the council's ability to establish transit lanes and alter the contravention of parking bylaw provisions.

This bill was introduced last fall as Bill 179. It is almost identical to that bill. We did not get to it then and it is being presented to the House for consideration.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite brief with respect to Bill 12. As the parliamentary assistant has indicated, it is an act to amend the Municipal Act. We have one of these almost every session. It deals with a number of anomalies, a number of discrepancies, a number of technical changes and so forth.

One of the more important aspects of this bill is that if a reeve or deputy reeve's position is declared vacant at the upper level, the county level, that seat should also be declared vacant at the lower level. There seems to be some misunderstanding about this.

This is consistent with legislation at the regional level, certainly in some regions, where if at one level a vacancy is created then it automatically follows that the vacancy should be reflected at the other level.

I understand, although I am not sure exactly where this has occurred, that some people at some levels do not carry forth the same kind of responsibility as they do at the other level. In other words, a reeve or a deputy reeve may exercise their responsibilities fairly fully at the upper level and yet not do it at the lower level. I find this very inconsistent and very unfortunate, but it seems to be the case. They may attend meetings at the upper level for three months, six months and so forth, yet at the lower level, not attend those meetings and not fulfil their responsibilities.

As I have indicated, that is unfortunate and it should be brought into line that if they do abdicate their responsibilities and are removed at one level, or quit for any reason, that follows through at the other level.

Another aspect of the bill is the negative vote. Mr. Speaker, I know you would particularly appreciate that if somebody decides not to vote they are included in the negatives of that vote rather than being excluded or being included in the affirmative. I do not have any argument with that.

The other thing is the fact that in Metropolitan Toronto, when one municipality leases or rents some kind of equipment from another municipality, in the past they have not been able to take the driver with it. It may be a specialized kind of equipment but they have not been able to get the operator, the driver, whatever we want to call him or her, along with it. This act opens the door for them to be able to do it and, again, is reasonable legislation.

Unfortunately, somehow or other the legislation was interpreted not to be able to include those aspects. We have no difficulty with the bill unless there is something hidden in the very small print. I am sure there is not, because I have read it. If by chance the parliamentary assistant has somehow slipped something in, maybe he could draw that to our attention.

I would also draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that once again I am disappointed. It is no particular comment on the abilities of the parliamentary assistant, but I want to draw to your attention that the minister is not here for a single piece of legislation. He has not been here since the bill to create the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was introduced and debated at second reading.

Mr. Boudria: Does the minister still work here?

Mr. Epp: He was here for question period. He left about three or four minutes ago. I just draw it to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why he keeps on avoiding the legislation in this Legislature.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this bill on behalf of our municipal affairs critic the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who is not able to be with us today.

Mr. Boudria: Is he with the minister?

Mr. Swart: I doubt that very much.

This is one of those bills where I am not sure how to establish the principle of the bill because they are amendments to the Municipal Act and each one of them stands or falls on its own and they deal with a great variety of issues.

In general, these amendments improve the Municipal Act and we will be supporting this bill in principle. I want to make some comments on some of the issues that are dealt with here and perhaps have the parliamentary assistant answer some of the questions I am going to raise relative to them.

Like the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), I think the amendment about the vote of a member of council being counted in the negative, if for one reason or another he does not vote or absents himself, is a good one. I do not think members of council should be able to refrain from taking stands on issues that are before them, such as the selection of a warden -- and having been a member of county council, I know the log-rolling that goes on in the selection of a warden.

11:30 a.m.

In the past, people have absented themselves because they did not want to offend anybody in case it meant they would not get on a committee of their choice or would not get to a convention they wanted to attend. This is an improvement. I commend the government for bringing in this amendment.

In section 5 and section 6 of the bill, there are amendments which will broaden the ability of municipalities to vary debentures. I think I am right in saying the parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 6 whereby it would apply to all municipalities and not just to those with a population of more than 20,000.

Why did he not also bring in an amendment to section 5? It seems to me the same sort of principle is involved there. There are many municipalities with populations of less than 20,000 which might want to have debentures issued for terms of less than 10 years, instead of the five years as is permitted to those with populations of more than 20,000. I do not know whether this is just an omission, but I would like to hear his reasons for it. I cannot see any reason why municipalities of less than 20,000 should not have that right as well.

I move to section 7 and section 8, where there is an amendment to permit banks owned by non-Canadian interests to provide banking services to municipalities and to permit the municipalities to avail themselves of that service. In view of the fact that the federal government has changed the act to permit foreign banks to operate in this country this proposal perhaps is reasonable, but there has been some undue haste in bringing in this amendment.

I can recall that some of us here in this party fought for years to get authority to get a change in the act which permitted municipalities to deal with credit unions and caisses populaire. Even though they had them right in their own municipalities, they could not deal with them. We fought for years to get that.

Now, all of a sudden, immediately there is a change in the federal Bank Act, the government brings in an amendment to permit municipalities to deal with foreign banks. I am not too supportive of that change in the federal legislation. I understand the international complications of these sorts of things, but I do not think we have to rush to bat for the foreign banks so that local municipalities can deal with them.

It is my hope that the local municipalities will not deal with them, considering the state we are in in this country and the need to invest our own money in this country. It does not seem to me that municipalities will want to use those foreign banks. Although I know it is a nice cleanup measure to put it in accord with federal legislation, I would like to hear from the parliamentary assistant why he is rushing to bring in this amendment.

Section 9 permits a municipality to contract out the use of its machinery and its men --

Mr. Epp: Or women.

Mr. Swart: Its employees: the member is so right. In my reading of this, it goes further than just contracting them out to another municipality. It would permit the municipality, and this is what I hope would be the intent of it, to contract out, for instance, for a condominium development where there are sewers, water works, paving of streets and so on that have to be done. Those people should have the right, if they wish, to have a nonprofit corporation do that work for them.

I remember a substantial debate in this House which we in this party lost two or three years ago, which would have required a municipality to negotiate with the condominium owners for the provision of part of the services. The present Municipal Act is very unjust to condominium owners, and I am sure members know that, in that they not only have to pay for the general municipal services but have to look after the streets, the lighting, the water and the sewers within their own condominium area. It is a tremendous cost to many condominium owners.

The parliamentary assistant may remember we lost that change in the wording, when it was introduced, to require provision of services by the municipalities, but it does permit negotiation with condominium owners. I would think this section of that legislation could implement the provision of those services. I ask the parliamentary assistant to comment on this.

Mr. Rotenberg: Which section are you on?

Mr. Swart: Section 9. I ask the parliamentary assistant to comment on whether my interpretation is correct, that a municipality could not only contract out but also contract out at below cost if they wished to do so. Perhaps he will answer that when he rises to reply on this bill.

Section 11 of this bill provides for full disclosure of remuneration paid to members of council by other boards on which they sit. At present, the act provides that this must be declared. This just goes a little further and provides that the board itself must provide that information: it puts an obligation on the board.

I ask the parliamentary assistant whether this is just a tidying-up measure or whether there have been some difficulties in some places in getting these quasi-municipal boards to disclose the remuneration and expenses they have been paying to members of council. Is that why he is bringing it in, or is it just a cleanup measure? If he is bringing it in because there has been a problem, will he tell this House specifically what the problem has been?

I am fully in support of this clause. I think there should be full disclosure by all members of council, by all public servants, of the total remuneration they receive, whether it is in salaries or in expenses. The government has brought in a bill to provide that public officials' salaries must be disclosed. This is probably part and parcel of that, but it was there before and I want to know what are the specific circumstances which bring about this change.

On the subsequent municipal bills I do not intend to take quite as long as I am taking on this one, because many of them deal with the same items, as I am sure members are aware. I want to get some answers, and we may as well get them on this bill.

I have some concern under section 12, and perhaps I should bring this up under the regional bill, but I say to the parliamentary assistant that I support section 12 as it is here. It has to do with the provision of special lanes on municipal roads, not only for public transit vehicles such as buses but also for private vehicles where there is a certain number of passengers in the car. Of course, the intent of this is obvious. We are trying to expedite the transportation of those vehicles with passenger loads, whether they are buses or whether they are carrying a group of people who get together to use one vehicle to go to work. It all makes sense.

11:40 a.m.

However, I think I am right in saying that some of the other bills we will have before us today do not include private vehicles; this one does, but some of the others do not. If I am wrong in that, the parliamentary assistant will correct me, I am sure, as he is always so quick to do. If I am right, I hope he will explain the reason for it.

Section 13, I believe, involves only a change in terminology. It says that they are in fact guilty of an offence. Rather than just indicating the power to levy a penalty on them, this states that they will be guilty of an offence when they break a municipal bylaw. I wonder what the significance of this is. The provision has been there to fine them. What does it add when it says they are guilty of an offence? Is it because it will make it easier to prosecute? Will a person have a record that he otherwise would not have if we put in the words that he "is guilty of an offence?" I ask the parliamentary assistant to comment on that.

The second part of section 13 makes it clear that "where a vehicle has been left parked, stopped or left standing in contravention of a bylaw passed under this act, the owner of the vehicle, notwithstanding that he was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention of the bylaw, is guilty of an offence and is liable to the fine prescribed for the offence unless, at the time of the offence, the vehicle was in the possession of some person other than the owner without the owner's consent."

I have some reservations about that clause, because it simply means that the owner of the vehicle, even though his son or some friend may have been using the car at the time and may have committed the offence, and even though this may be admitted by someone else, is going to incur the penalty.

Once again, I recognize the difficulty in finding out who may have had the car in his possession at the time. I think it would be preferable -- and I hope the parliamentary assistant will listen to this -- instead of saying "is guilty of an offence," to say "may be guilty of an offence." Then if it could be determined who actually had possession of the car and who was guilty, that person would pay the fine. I think you would agree, as a very reasonable and pleasant man, Mr. Speaker, that this makes sense. Why should a person who is not guilty be found guilty when they know who is guilty?

I ask the parliamentary assistant whether he will deal with that and perhaps consider a friendly amendment that might say "may be guilty of an offence." That would leave it up to the courts to decide, if necessary, which to me seems much more reasonable than trying to penalize an innocent person.

I presume the new subsection 321a(2) in section 13 has some relationship to the new legislation, which we strongly supported, for voluntary payments out of court in the city of Toronto so that people may even argue a case out of court and not have all the minor offences go to court. I also presume there is connection between these two. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would like to comment on that when he rises.

Mr. Di Santo: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to take a minute of the time of the assembly to express my best wishes to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart),who is celebrating his birthday today.

Mr. Swart: Thank you.

An. hon. member: Is he 39?

The Deputy Speaker: I was just about to ask. Is the honourable member 39?

Mr. Swart: No, I am not 39. I have no hesitation in giving my age. I am 63 today. I rise not to reply to that, but to say, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." The member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) has a birthday today as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Oh.

Mr. Swart: You may not think we are the same age --

The Deputy Speaker: And you are not.

Mr. Swart: -- and if you think that, you are right. He is celebrating, I think, his 42nd birthday today. I am sure the House will want to extend congratulations to him.

The Deputy Speaker: Congratulations.

Is the member for St. Catharines having a birthday too?

Mr. Bradley: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege to say that I am pleased to add my own good wishes to both these gentlemen on their birthdays and to express relief. When the member for Downsview rose in the House I thought, this being an important day. that it was going to be the last day for one of these two gentlemen in the House and that they were going to announce they were going to vacate one of their seats on behalf of their leader. I am very relieved that is not the case, because both of them add so much to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Swart: If I may use an incorrect term, that kind of wishful thinking may go on for a long time.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Kolyn: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would certainly like to ask the member for Downsview his age. I am sure he is not 63.

The Deputy Speaker: He is 42.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the two critics opposite for their support of the bill. I hope I have made notes on all the questions asked, particularly by the member for Welland-Thorold. Initially, I would like to congratulate him on his birthday. However, it should be noted that, birthday or no birthday, the honourable member is still speaking at his usual length. I will try to answer all his questions.

First, as the member for Welland-Thorold said, I will be bringing an amendment to section 6, which I had given notice of. It renews the ability of all municipalities with a population of less than 20,000 to issue debentures in the same manner. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it has been the intention of the ministry, in various municipal bills as they come forward, to remove status distinctions between the various kinds of municipalities. This is a gradual process in the act.

It is worth pointing out, in regard to the other parts that were taken out of this particular act, that, as far as section 5 on debentures is concerned, we have before the House Bill 150, the second Municipal Act of the year, which removes the provision for the rest of the debenturing. When this bill was written, we had not made the policy decision to remove that status distinction. There is no reason why we did not; we just had not got around to it. Removing the words "a population of 20,000" in section 6 and then the amendments in Bill 150, which will be on later in the session, will remove that status distinction for all the debentures. So the matter is in hand.

Mr. Swart: Why not do it in this bill?

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, with respect, it is a little more complicated than just putting it in. The lawyer advises the better way to do it is the other way. As long as it is done as here, it is not going to interrupt any municipalities.

The matter of foreign banks has been raised by the member for Welland-Thorold. I point out that whether or not foreign banks can do business with this country is, as he said, a matter of federal jurisdiction. It is our feeling that if a bank is legal in this country, a municipality shall have the option of dealing or not dealing with that bank or any other financial institution. It is not under the jurisdiction of this Legislature. This Legislature should not be telling municipalities whether they can or cannot deal with banks.

I share with the member for Welland-Thorold the hope that municipalities will deal with banks that are in their communities and that assist their communities. In my opinion, it is not really up to us to indicate to the municipality that thou shalt not deal with a bank which is legal under the federal act.

11:50 a.m.

As far as contracting out is concerned, the only change we make in the legislation is that up until now a municipality could contract out its machinery or equipment to other municipalities or to anybody else. As the member for Waterloo North indicated, we are just adding a technicality, because when we originally put that in we did not add the staff. If one contracts out a certain machine and the certain driver or skilled person goes with it, that person should be able to go as well. So that is the reason for the amendment.

I do not think the section on remuneration of public bodies has been a major problem, but we are putting in a date of February 28; that is the main change in it. Local boards report the remuneration and expenses, not only of the council members on the local board but also of municipal appointees on the local board who are noncouncil members. From time to time they were coming in late, and that was causing some municipal treasurers a problem when they had to make up their annual statements and those reports were not in yet. We are putting in a mandatory date of February 28 so that all matters are received by the municipal treasurer on time and the treasurer can do his work properly.

Regarding private vehicles on transit lanes, my understanding is that they are in all the other acts as well. The note says they are included in Bill 15. It is our intention when we get to the other bills to make amendments if we find there is some inadvertence in not having the same private vehicles allowed in other bills, but it is my information that it is somewhere in all the other bills. Some of the regional municipalities previously had this authority, and it was in their previous authority as well. When we get the other bills, I will then have the exact reference for the member for Welland-Thorold.

As far as the parking tickets for automobiles are concerned, all members will recall the case of a car rental company that received tickets but refused to pay a municipality because, it said, "It is not our responsibility. We rented out the car." As a result of that court case and requests from many municipalities, we want to clarify the case of parking tickets as distinguished from moving offences.

Parking tickets are the responsibility of the owner of the car; if somebody else was driving the car with his permission, then he has to pay the fine and get it back from whoever was driving the car. It would be impossible for a municipality or court to be able to track down the driver of the car. It would mean the police officer would have to stand there and wait until the driver comes back and give him a ticket as he does on a moving offence.

Mr. Swart: What about the word "may?"

Mr. Rotenberg: With respect, this is a legal problem. The owner of the vehicle, if he is convicted, is guilty. The owner of the vehicle is responsible. It should not be at the discretion of the courts to say, "The man may be guilty." One cannot write laws saying a person may be guilty of an offence. A person is or is not guilty of an offence. One just cannot send a judge legislation which says "may" as far as being or not being guilty of an offence.

This is worded this way under the Provincial Offences Act to bring this act into play so the municipality can enforce its parking bylaws. Anything other than this section would result in a lot of arguments in court as to who was or was not the driver, or who was or was not responsible. Again, this has been as a result of a court case.

It is our feeling and it is the feeling of the municipalities and the police forces that the parking bylaws and enforcement could be in serious difficulty without this amendment. We feel this matter should go forward as written.

According to my notes, I think I have dealt with all the matters raised by the member for Welland-Thorold.

I would like to give the assurance again to the member for Waterloo North that the bill is here and that nothing has been slipped in. The member knows full well that I have indicated to him and to my critic from the New Democratic Party that any time they have any questions about details of these acts, the staff of our ministry is available to them for questions and for clarification. I just assure the member for Waterloo North and all other members that everything in this bill is up front and that there is nothing we are trying to slip in.

Mr. Swart: What about the right of municipalities to provide contract services at less than cost?

Mr. Rotenberg: Again, the municipalities have the right to contract out their machinery or their people, and it is really up to the municipality as to how it deals with this situation. We use the words "local autonomy" around this chamber quite often, and the municipal leaders and politicians use the words "local autonomy" even more. In matters such as this, as in many other matters, we provide the authority for municipalities in a general way to contract out. It is really up to the municipality to be responsible and to contract out in a responsible manner.

We do not feel there should be any further restrictions put on this. It has been working well up to now. There really have not been any complaints about municipalities contracting out their machinery or equipment and causing any concern out there in the marketplace. Therefore, we do not feel it is necessary to put any further restrictions on them.

As I indicated earlier, I have a small amendment to this bill; so when the motion for second reading has been approved, I will ask that this bill go to the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 13, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of minor amendments to the County of Oxford Act. Many of these amendments are similar to those we have just passed in the municipal bill and those we are coming to in a moment in the regional bill which deals with the regions. As Oxford is a county, it has to have a separate bill rather than being dealt with in the regional bill.

The main provisions in this bill are the provisions for debentures that we discussed, the resignation and disqualification of county councillors and the method of changing the status of each municipality if the municipality should wish to change its status.

I commend this bill to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are going to support this bill, but I find a particular aspect of this bill, as well as when we amend the district of Muskoka bill, the Metropolitan Toronto bill and the regional bills, is that the government is trying to make them all the same.

In some aspects this is acceptable, particularly with respect to technical amendments. However, another important aspect is that whereas the government has prided itself in the past in having 10 or 11 regions in Ontario, if one includes Metropolitan Toronto and so forth, it has in a way insisted that Muskoka and Oxford are not regional governments, yet it treats them as regional governments.

I challenge the parliamentary assistant to put clearly on the record the distinctions he sees in terms of the regional municipalities in Ontario and the district of Muskoka and the county of Oxford. I challenge him to show clearly the distinctions between them, because out there in the county of Oxford and in the district of Muskoka, they really think they are regions. I think they are right to a large extent.

I know the parliamentary assistant has shied away from giving the distinctions in the past. I challenge him today to take five, 10 or 15 minutes to lay down before the members of this Legislature, clearly and decisively, the distinctions between all these various regions. I know he is an authority on them. I know it will take him about two minutes to make notes on this. Then he can lay out clearly exactly what the distinctions are. I expect we are going to get that in the windup of this bill today.

Change in the status of local municipalities is one of the aspects of this bill. I know the fact will be particularly appreciated that until now if the municipality wanted to change its status, for instance from township to city or to town or whatever it might be, a special act would be brought in.

12 noon

I commend the parliamentary assistant -- certainly not the minister, because he has abdicated his responsibilities with respect to legislation -- who is very able and is trying to do a very good job on bringing in some of these amendments to the act.

As members know, the borough of North York wanted to become a city and was able to change to a city. In the past year or two we have had a number of other municipalities that have wanted a change of status, and this is understandable. We have never opposed that, and I do not believe that the New Democratic Party has opposed it. It is a fairly regular thing that they should be permitted to do this, because the only difference in status between a township and a town is in the kind of Ministry of Transportation and Communications grants they receive. Some of the municipalities have tried to retain their smaller status -- smaller with respect to population size -- because it means their MTC grants are larger.

I remember a few years ago when we had the township of Mississauga; it had about 150,000 people, and was still regarded as a township. Now it is a city of 299,000 people, according to the sign that is proudly erected along Highway 401, the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway. They benefited from the extra grants by their municipality being designated as a township until a few years ago.

Still another part here is that some municipalities may have the ability to award and provide scholarships. These days this is particularly important, when the government is opting out of a number of programs. It really should not be odd, because as the economy gets tighter and tighter the government keeps on giving more and more --

Is that a signal to me?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes. I am wondering how this works into the Oxford bill.

Mr. Epp: It is part of the Oxford legislation, the ability to make awards and provide scholarships. We are saying that it is the principle of the thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will understand this if you will only give me 30 minutes to explain myself.

The Deputy Speaker: Thirty minutes?

Mr. Epp: As the economy gets tighter and tighter the government proudly presents more and more autonomy to municipalities. They say: "Isn't this gracious of us? The great majority of Ontario, 70 members, will now give you the power to give scholarships to some of your citizens." Then when money gets freer they say, "You municipalities do not have quite the maturity to deal with these very important matters, and you cannot have the right to give scholarships to your citizens," so they withdraw these rights.

They are trying to become more consistent; they are trying to recognize maturity in the development of the great municipalities of Ontario, and they are saying, "You seven, nine or 25 councillors can vote somebody a scholarship for $500 or $1,000 or something of that nature." Mind you, until now they could have awarded contracts worth millions of dollars, but when it came to scholarships they were not able to do it. Now, suddenly, they are mature enough to do it.

We have no difficulty supporting that particular aspect of the bill as well as the others in here, which are fairly standard and which are included in some other bills.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, Bill 13, which we have before us, refers only to the county of Oxford, but it is very similar to the bill that will be coming before us to amend many of the regional municipalities acts. Therefore, on this bill I once again want to make some comments that will have some general relevance to all of the regions.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) mentioned the first clause. I share his view that it is desirable to give this sort of automatic right to the ministry, subject to certain safeguards, to change the status of a municipality. Thorold still is the newest city in the province. It has been four or five years since it was incorporated as a city with a population of 15,000. To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any cities incorporated since then. They had to get special legislation. This makes it possible for the minister to do it and I think it is desirable.

However, I suggest that the parliamentary assistant take another look at section 2. I am somewhat concerned with what is proposed here. I want to read this proposed subsection (2b) because I think it is of interest to all members of this House, municipal people and all those who are interested in the democratic process.

Section 2 of the bill provides that section 13 of the act he amended by adding, as subsection (2b): "A member of the county council with the consent of the majority of the members present at a meeting, entered upon the minutes of it, may resign his office and his seat in the council which shall then be vacant, but he shall not vote on a motion as to his own resignation" and this is the significant part, "and if the council does not accept his resignation it is of no effect."

In effect, what we are doing here is prohibiting a member of council from resigning even though he may want to resign. I cannot anticipate many circumstances where if a person on a council wanted to resign the council would not let him resign, but if that circumstance did arise, why should the member not have the right to simply table his resignation with the clerk of the municipality and by that process tender his resignation?

I can see a council going through a formality, but not putting into the act that if the council does not accept his resignation it is of no effect. That prevents a person from resigning from council if he no longer wants to serve whether it is for health reasons, or he is moving away, or because he is too busy or perhaps he has bought a new business and feels there would be too many conflicts of interest if he stayed on the council. The council can prevent that member from resigning. That is in contradiction to the principles of democracy. If a person does not want to serve any longer, he should not be required to serve. There is adequate legislation for replacement in the act, etc.

I can see this being used deliberately by some municipalities to contravene the intention of the Municipal Act. At the present time, municipalities must hold elections or they must replace members of council when seats becomes vacant. There could be an instance where they would want to have another election because the person who is the runner-up may not be acceptable to council.

I have heard of this happening many times. It happened in St. Catharines with the case of Fred Lindal. Even though he was a runner-up, that council refused to appoint him although the tradition had been followed on at least five occasions where they had appointed the runner-up. They did not want him. So they refused to appoint him and held an election.

This section would give the opportunity for a municipality to not permit the person to resign. Therefore, there would not be a vacancy and council would run with one person short for the rest of the term. I do not think it is in the interests of democracy or the ratepayers in the municipality who might go without representation for a year or some long period of time because the councillor decided he did not want to sit in person or the council did not want the costs. That may be legitimate, but they did not want the costs of a municipal election to replace that person. So I do not think it should be compulsory for that person to continue to serve if he does not want to serve.

Subsection 13(2c) and the other sections pertaining to seats becoming vacant when a person holds a dual position on the county council and the local council, all make common sense and are just housekeeping amendments to make sure that does take place.

12:10 p.m.

Next I want to deal with section 5. This does have very real concern for me and especially for my party. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) alluded to the same principle, but in a different way. I suggest this is much more serious than the principle to which he alluded, that of scholarships and making awards. Under section 5, and this carries through into the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act so it will have a broad application in this province if it is permitted, we are allowing both a county council and the area municipality to make grants towards hospitals.

I was on a municipal council for many years. One of the problems that always existed was the duplication of contributions to hospitals. In those days, the local municipality where the hospital was situated would be asked for a capital donation to the hospital. As well, the county would be asked for a capital contribution. There was always a dog fight between the two on who was going to give the money. Sometimes both of them would give it. Sometimes, if a municipality did not have enough clout on county council, only the local municipality made a donation. If it did have clout, then the county council would be the only one to make a donation.

It was a matter not only of real controversy, but also of real injustice. The ratepayers were often paying twice, or a ratepayer who should not have been paying to one hospital, in the case of the county making the contribution, attended a hospital in another county, and was paying towards that other hospital in his municipal taxes. I remember two particular changes: first, when we brought in the health plan for the province and the province took over the hospitals. No more money would have to be paid out for the construction and expansion of hospitals and, in some cases in those days, for the operating costs of the hospitals. Everybody was very delighted about that.

The second change was when we formed regional governments throughout the province. This problem was going to be eliminated because there were amendments in the county acts and in the regional municipalities Act that only the county or the region could contribute. It was one of the selling points for the regional municipalities. Only the regions would be able to contribute. The local municipalities would not have to make these financial contributions any more. Now we have a bill before us providing that the area municipalities, the local municipalities and the counties or regions will again be permitted. This dog fight will go on once again.

It is serious, although not with the existing situation because not too many of them are making contributions. I know what is behind this and the government knows what is behind this. One of the ways they are going to cut down on hospital costs in the future is by turning at least part of the capital cost back to the local municipalities and regional municipalities to raise by the regressive property tax rate.

That is what is behind this amendment we have before us at the present time. It is not at all just an innocuous little amendment we are putting in here to give a bit more autonomy to the municipalities. This has been put in here, deliberately, so that municipalities will have the power to make many kinds of payments to the hospitals for operating and capital costs. It is the full intention of the government to use that provision to provide less money than it has done up to now.

They will be saying to hospitals like Welland County General Hospital, "It is true that you have a great waiting list and may not have enough beds, but if you people will have your municipal taxes raise enough money to provide more beds and to pay part or all of the operating costs, then you can have more beds in that municipality." This has been part of the whole plan of the government since 1975, with that infamous document that was tabled, to return to the municipalities, via the regressive property tax rate, many of the costs that have been borne by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, we will insist that we go to committee of the whole of House to deal with this amendment.

I want to refer briefly, if I may, also to section 7, which provides for the establishment of a reserve fund. Nobody has any argument against establishing reserve funds. They have been established over many years.

I would like, however, to hear the parliamentary assistant's comments on whether there should not be a provision in the legislation whereby a municipality would require, perhaps, a two-thirds vote to use that money for purposes other than those which have been set up for the reserve fund. It has been the practice of many municipalities, and one which I commend, to establish reserve funds for the provision of a number of services in the future and to pay for costs they know they are going to have way down the road. But it has been possible for a new council to come in and, by a simple majority vote, to use those funds for some current services, useful as they may be, and sometimes deliberately for the purpose of keeping taxes down because it was an election year.

I know the difficulties of taking the right away from municipalities to make their own decisions year by year, but this has a slightly different connotation to that of the decisions they normally make. Some of these long-term decisions such as decisions under the Planning Act are permanent. They have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, where everybody has a say, before they can be changed. To give the opportunity to a new council to rescind what was a long-term decision made by the previous council in the previous year, without some sort of hearing or consultation, seems to me to be unwise. I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant's comments on that.

I doubt very much if we will be voting against that section of the bill, but I would like to hear the comments of the parliamentary assistant.

May I just say that from there on, from sections 8 to 12, we have no objection except for section 10, which gives permission for the county and the area municipalities to make payments for the same purposes. That is a principle we in this party cannot support, because we think the government has some ulterior motives in including those clauses in this bill.

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply briefly to the matters raised by the members opposite.

As to the distinctions between the county of Oxford, the district of Muskoka and the regions, as raised by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), yes, there are some distinctions. Each regional municipality has a lot of things that are similar and a number of things that are unique to that regional municipality. They are reflected in the acts, both when they were formed and in subsequent amendments to the regional acts.

Regions do not have private bills as municipalities do and, when regions want something distinctive, it is enacted in legislation. The county of Oxford, for instance, does not have a chairman; it has a warden. The member for Waterloo North will be pleased to know the warden also retains a seat on his local council, something he would approve of.

There are other minor differences in the county of Oxford, the district of Muskoka and the regions which have been put in the acts initially or, from time to time, at the request of the local regions. I will not take a long time to dwell on them because they are in the acts; they are historical and this is the way the people, the elected representatives of those regions and the area municipalities wish to have them.

As far as the power to give scholarships is concerned, this is part of our policy to expand local autonomy in every section. I assure the member for Waterloo North that the government has no intention of withdrawing any of these powers to give scholarships or any other powers we have given to area municipalities and to regions as they come forward.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) does raise an interesting point about a resignation having to be accepted. First, this is common law in many other situations, not just with municipalities, where a resignation is given and is accepted. I would assume that in almost every situation a resignation would be accepted by the council. However, the member is correct that there could be abuse by a council in a unique or specific case of a resignation not being accepted. On the other side of the coin, there could be some abuse by a councillor wishing to resign for a reason which also could be an abuse of the power.

We have to remember that these councils were elected to serve the people for a two-year term or, from now on, a three-year term and there has to be a valid reason for the member of council to resign. Given a valid reason, I am sure the council would accept it, but in effect what the member for Welland-Thorold is saying is that the council might want to play politics and not accept a resignation, which is true, but the councillor might also be playing politics in trying to put in his resignation.

On balance, we feel it should remain the way it is. If a councillor does not want to serve and he is absent for three months, then the council would declare his seat vacant if it has not excused him. I suggest we leave it the way it is, but I would state to the member for Welland-Thorold that he has raised a question in my mind and, some time between now and the next time we bring in a municipal bill, I am going to review that section again with staff.

I am convinced now that the bill is right the way it is but, because he has raised the point and there may be some validity to it, I am going to review that, not in respect of the act before us but some time between now and when we have the next revision of the Municipal Act, which may be in the fall or may be next year.

I point out to the member for Welland-Thorold, because he raised the point previously on the Municipal Act, that in subsection 4(2) on vehicle lanes, private motor vehicles are mentioned in that act as well; so it is there and in the other acts.

As far as the grants to hospitals are concerned, I am not sure where the member for Welland-Thorold finds this deep, dark plot by somebody in the government trying to do something to the municipalities. As we review these acts, what we are really doing is giving permissive legislation for either level of government to make these grants. There is no plot. We have had no discussions with the Ministry of Health. There is no plot to try to force municipalities to do things.

There is, and should be from time to time, the power for either the area municipalities or the region or both, if they desire, to make these kinds of grants. We feel that is the way it should be. There is no plot I have heard about and, if we believe in local autonomy, as we all do, we should allow the local municipality to do it, if it desires to.

In other words, we, as a Legislature, should not be placing restrictions on municipalities in these things. If they want to do it, they may. If they do not want to do it, there is certainly no compulsion for them to do so.

Mr. Swart: Why did you put them in before? You used to have the power.

Mr. Rotenberg: A number of things have been put in historically over the years.

Mr. Swart: It is your government.

Mr. Rotenberg: This Legislature knows, and I have stated in this Legislature many times, that we are constantly reviewing the Municipal Act to ease it up as far as possible, to give as much permission and power to municipalities as possible. This is being done over the years.

As far as the reserve funds to the municipalities are concerned, there has been a requirement for a two-thirds majority. The municipalities have asked for this restriction to be removed. The principle is very simple. If a council, on its own, by a simple majority, can do something, the same council, on its own, by a simple majority, should be able to undo it.

There is no requirement for Ontario Municipal Board approval to have the funds. There is no requirement of a two-thirds majority to put the funds in place. Therefore, with respect, I suggest the council should not be restricted in undoing what the council can do.

I feel the municipalities are correct, that they should be allowed to undo a reserve fund they established. After all, there is no requirement in this House to have a two-thirds majority for anything. I do not think it would be democratic to say to a municipality: "You should have that sort of thing. You should have to do that."

Mr. Swart: You don't apply that principle to the Planning Act.

Mr. Rotenberg: As a matter of fact, I think we have taken it out of the Planning Act, in response to the interjection, which, of course, is out of order. There is no more planning board, as the member knows and as we were discussing in committee, and therefore there is no requirement for a two-thirds majority for planning.

Mr. Swart: A municipality cannot change plans willy-nilly.

Mr. Rotenberg: Just a moment. The principle is that a municipality requires an approval for its plan originally from the municipal board and, therefore, the municipality requires approval for a change. What the municipality can do is put in the reserve fund without approval from anybody. If a municipality can establish it without approval, it should be able to undo it without approval; if there was a requirement for OMB approval for the reserve fund, of course, there should be. But, with respect, the reserve fund is a device for a municipality to put some money in a special account. I think it should be allowed to do that and to change it.

I think I have dealt with the major matters the members opposite have raised. I understand the member for Welland-Thorold wishes the bill to be put into the committee of the whole. If that is his desire, it will go to committee and we will deal with this problem when we get to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, second reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very similar to the two previous bills. Most of the provisions are the standard provisions that are going into the Municipal Act and the regional act and, as we have just seen, the County of Oxford Act. They are similar to the act we have just passed.

The amendments include provisions for changing the terms of debenture, for the resignation or disqualification of regional councils and the method of changing status for a municipality. These are common to all municipalities dealt with under the regional act. Of course, similar matters will be dealt with in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act when we get to that a little later on in this session.

12:30 p.m.

We have provisions on banks, transit lanes, grants and so on, all of which have already been discussed in the other bills. However, there are some amendments that are individual to the individual regions. These include the change of quorum in the Ottawa council, an exemption from taxation in the Ottawa-Carleton convention centre and an alteration of the boundary in the Kitchener-Waterloo region. These amendments are all at the request of the regional councils.

With those words, I would commend this bill to the House.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are going to support this bill. As the parliamentary assistant has indicated, there are some changes. I was surprised to learn, though I should have noticed, that in the village of Rockcliffe Park in Ottawa, which is a regional municipality, they do not call the head of that council mayor. One of the things this bill will do is designate the head of that council as mayor. That also applies to the townships of Cumberland and Osgoode.

I want to address two things in the bill, the first being grants to hospitals. I understand in Durham, Haldimand-Norfolk, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Peel and Sudbury the local municipalities may not give grants to hospitals. This amendment to the act will permit them to do so.

As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) pointed out earlier, this is a new imposition on the property tax. All of us know that the property tax is one of the most regressive taxes in existence. It is probably equally regressive to the sales tax because it places the burden on those people who have the ability to pay as well as those who do not or who have a much lesser ability. That is why it is regressive. There are many taxes like income tax where those who have the ability pay more and those who do not have the ability pay less, based on their income.

This is an attempt by the province to gloriously permit municipalities to have more autonomy by giving their money away to hospitals, while on the other hand telling them, "We are shortchanging the hospitals on a daily basis and therefore we are going to put the burden on the municipalities to pay that money." That is somewhat ambiguous because, although it appears there is more autonomy, in actual fact it is passing the buck. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here," but the provincial government does not believe in that. They keep passing the buck either to municipalities, the federal government or the citizens of Ontario. Never do they accept responsibility if anything goes wrong.

We know that hospitals are suffering currently. They are going to have deficit budgets. The parliamentary assistant is keenly aware of that. They are going to put the burden on the municipalities to come forward with the money they may require in order to avoid deficit financing.

The other aspect I want to address is not only what is in the bill but what has been clearly omitted; that is, an amendment to the act that would permit municipalities to have the chairmen of councils of the various regions elected as opposed to being appointed. I have mentioned this in the Legislature on at least one occasion and probably on 10 or 15. One of these days the government will catch up with the will of the people.

Mr. Boudria: Do not count on it.

Mr. Epp: I did not say it was going to be a Conservative government. It will be a Liberal government.

Mr. Boudria: Okay. A Liberal government would do it for sure.

Mr. Epp: A Liberal government is going to do it. Hansard should note that a lot of people in the government benches are nodding yes; this is a very important amendment and very shortly, certainly after the next election, we are going to make this important change. I know you will appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because finally there will be some democracy down your way, although I do not in any way deny the fact that you are elected by the will of the people --

The Deputy Speaker: Ah.

Mr. Epp: -- recognizing the great abilities that you have, etc.

Mr. Boudria: Nonpartisan ability.

Mr. Epp: Nonpartisan, very much so. But --

The Deputy Speaker: But --

Mr. Epp: But --

Mr. Boudria: However --

Mr. Epp: Getting back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I wish those people over there would not always interrupt me so I have to digress. The parliamentary assistant has never clearly indicated to this House why the chairman could not be democratically elected and be a member of the local council.

We know the Prime Minister of Canada has a local constituency and we know the Premier (Mr. Davis) has a local constituency, yet both these positions are more important than the Metro chairman. I am sure the parliamentary assistant would agree with that. They are more important and they should be more important than the chairman of Metro council, or the chairman of the region of Waterloo, or the chairman of the region of Durham, or the chairman of any of the other regions, including the region of Niagara or the region of Peel, where the Premier is from. All these chairmen should have seats where they are elected locally rather than first being appointed, usually from a locally elected position and after that being anointed.

When this bill comes before the committee of the whole House, we will give real consideration to trying to amend these acts so that if at all possible the people in the boondocks, out there in the various regional municipalities, can have a say as to whether the regional chairman is elected. By making sure he is elected at a local level, the people in that municipality or that ward will have a say as to who is the chairman.

I challenge the parliamentary assistant to come up with one good reason -- and I said a good reason; he can come up with a lot of shady reasons -- why the chairman should not be elected.

Mr. Cassidy: The Liberals voted against that principle three or four years ago.

Mr. Epp: Here we go again. The member for Ottawa Centre should get his facts clear.

Mr. Cassidy: You had a chance. We have been consistent.

Mr. Epp: The member should get his facts clear. We have always been in favour of having the chairman elected. Never have we opposed that principle, and I dare the member to quote one single occasion where we have opposed the principle of his being elected.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, this is the third municipal bill before us today and I waited expectantly for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) to come into the House and deal with his bills. That is no reflection on the parliamentary assistant; although I may disagree with him on many issues, he has been very diligent in the duties which have been assigned to him. It seems to me this Legislature and the committees of this Legislature have the right on occasion to have the minister here when municipal bills are being dealt with.

We have had what I think is the most important bill that any municipal affairs minister has presented in this House, the new Planning Act, before a committee for almost two years. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has never appeared before that committee for that important bill. Again, this is no reflection on the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) who is carrying this bill. The reflection is on the minister. He has no concern for municipal affairs, important as they are in this province. I wonder if he even has any concern for housing.

Mr. Boudria: He is concerned about his own house.

Mr. Swart: He has a concern about his own house; that is for sure, and the money to pay for it. I just wonder what that minister does. It is not unfair to say it is time he took some responsibility for municipal affairs and for important legislation that is before this House.

12:40 p.m.

The second general comment I want to make is that the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) -- I do not have to get Hansard out -- knows very well that the Liberal Party voted against an amendment when there was a minority government to have the chairmen of regional governments elected. There is no question about that. That is all in Hansard.

In fact, just last week the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) got up -- I may paraphrase him to some extent but he said when his party voted against that amendment, which I had put forward, he almost had heart failure.

The only time we have ever had the opportunity, since the member for Waterloo North and I have been in this House, to see that the chairmen were elected, he and his party voted against that amendment. I do not doubt his sincerity here today, but one has to doubt the sincerity of the Liberty Party about really wanting that. The excuse at that time as to why they did not vote for the election of regional chairmen -- and these are his words not mine -- was, "Sure we are in favour of it, but this is not the appropriate time to do it." We had the bill before us and could have done it. The member for Waterloo North said that was not the appropriate time to do it.

In Bill 15 which we have before us there are a number of items, in fact perhaps the majority of them, that we dealt with under the revised County of Oxford Act and I am not going to repeat myself in comments on those particular sections; whether they are the alteration of the status, the seats vacant, the resignations of members applying to both of the councils on which they serve, or whether comments with regard to the foreign banks, I accept his argument. I think it is a bit hasty to do it. I think he could have waited for five years to show his displeasure. But wanting to be in conformity with the federal Liberal government and in spite of what he says I know he is anxious to be in conformity on interest rates and a great many other things too, I respect his desire to get in conformity with them.

I am not even going to deal once again with the issue of the aid to hospitals. The comments I made on that are applicable here: it can be disastrous for the property taxpayers of this province. I think we had better recognize that this is just opening the door. This is just the camel's head.

Mark my words, if that government is in power five years from now, which is very unlikely, members will find that a very large proportion of the capital costs of hospitals are going to be borne by the property taxpayers. I make that prediction here today. First, I make the prediction they will not be there in five years, but I make the prediction that if they are, the property taxpayer is going to be paying for it. I can just see it happening. "I am sorry we do not have the money for those. You will have to go to your local council and raise it locally."

Mr. Boudria: Hospitals by the acre.

Mr. Swart: Yes, hospitals by the acre; that is interpreted as some acres in other areas as well.

Sections 6 and 7 are included in the other bill which we have already discussed. In section 9, the matters of offering an award, competition, fellowship, scholarship, are all part of the same policy of the Conservative government to start to revert costs back to the local municipalities, as I said before, under the regressive property tax act.

The changing of the terminology so that the heads of the areas and municipalities become mayors is an amendment that I think we can support.

I am intrigued by the change, although I agree with it, in the quorum of the council where there is now an additional member in council. That is to make sure that the majority of the members of council form a quorum. I would just say to you, Mr. Speaker, that, as you well know, if that was the situation in this House it would never function from January to December.

Mr. Boudria: I do not think we have quorum right now.

Mr. Swart: We may have, although it is rather doubtful. No, I do not think we have one. However, we will not bring that to the attention of the Speaker because I know the member wants to make a few comments on this, which he would not be able to do in that case.

I think that it is desirable. I also think it is desirable that we take a look at the standing orders of this House to see that they require more than the present 20 out of 125 members as a quorum.

That brings me to the end of my comments on this bill. I look forward to the reply of the parliamentary assistant, in the absence of the minister.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this bill. I share the views of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) in regretting that, as on too many past occasions, the minister (Mr. Bennett) is not here today to discuss another of his bills. I find this bill is particularly significant because the area where his constituency is located is affected. Part of this bill affects the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I have been a member of the municipal council of Ottawa-Carleton, as has the minister and the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I believe, and probably other members of this Legislature as well.

I welcome the change in renaming the reeves as mayors. I moved that resolution in Cumberland township council prior to resigning in order to come to this Legislature. I welcome that change, and I think the residents of the township of Cumberland do as well. Very briefly, the title of reeve is nearly impossible to translate into the French language; at least, in my view an adequate translation cannot be made. As far as I am concerned it would be much more convenient if it were abolished everywhere and replaced by something that could more easily be used in both languages.

In French, the same word is used for reeve and warden, and that causes so much confusion it is impossible to deal with it. Both of them are known in French as préfets, which tends to confuse people, especially in our area. So I welcome that change.

I want to reiterate the concerns of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) when he says that, again, we witness that this bill does not recognize the fact that regional chairmen should have a seat, or should represent an area specifically, besides the function that they have as regional chairmen.

I have spoken to this in the past. The parliamentary assistant will remember I discussed the fact that a very good mayor of one of the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton resigned his seat to run for the regional chairman position. Actually, two very competent mayors did that, the mayors of Vanier and Nepean.

The mayor of Nepean was successful. We all can appreciate that when two good candidates run, unfortunately one of them loses. We recall that happened in certain constituencies in this province, and the same happened in that area; the mayor of Vanier did lose. Had they both been able to keep their positions and then run --

Interjection.

12:50 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: No, here he goes again saying they could have kept their positions. That is not possible. He could have run again for mayor, yes, and then two days after the election resigned the seat as mayor he had won two days before to run for regional chairman. If the government is advocating that policy, I would say it is absolutely ridiculous. One does not run on a mandate that if he is elected he will resign to run for something else. That is impossible, and I would suggest to the member that as long as the government has that policy it is totally inadequate. Every mayor and every member of a regional council should be able to run for the chairmanship without resigning his seat.

I do not want to take any more time on this except to say that I am concerned with another thing that happened to me when I resigned from municipal council, and it has not been addressed in very many areas yet.

When I resigned my seat after being elected to this Legislature, the council in my municipality decided in its wisdom to appoint someone who had never run for public office to replace me. In spite of the fact that there were three runners-up behind me, they were not chosen. It was only three months after the municipal election. The council decided in its wisdom not to call a by-election but to appoint somebody who had never run for anything in his life, and I do not feel that kind of thing should be happening.

I know I speak personally. We have not discussed this as a caucus or as a party, but I am concerned about that, and it is an item we should be addressing.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker. I want to comment briefly on a couple of points that are involved. One is the tax exemption for the convention centre in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. As the parliamentary assistant knows, in the absence of the minister, this is something that people in the Ottawa area have undertaken in order to try to ensure that some of the convention business they hoped would be available would come to the nation's capital; the reason is that there was not an adequate facility in the capital, and conventions that were held there were either confined to small conventions that could be held in hotels or else were held at the civic centre. The civic centre is not bad for political conventions, a purpose for which the building was to some extent designed, but for other types of conventions it is not particularly suitable.

I am crossing my fingers because as I watch the designs being made here in Toronto, as I look at the difficulties, to be frank, with the Hamilton convention centre, which is inadequately served by hotel space, as I look at the number of other municipalities across the continent which have decided that the wave of the future is to build a convention centre in order to generate business and serve as a tourist attraction and so on, I think it may well be, particularly in the kind of economic conditions we are facing, that everybody is being hopelessly optimistic in his projections.

I would hate to see it happen that the municipalities which are essentially going into business with subsidized convention centres may wind up falling well short of their projections and that the new forms of electronic communication will be sufficiently cheap that people under cost constraints will decide to communicate that way rather than meet in person. Those kinds of things could mean some of these convention centres will not work.

As a resident of Ottawa I hope ours will. It is right downtown; it is not stuck out by the airport. Ottawa is an exceptionally attractive city. It is a tourist attraction. Canadian cities have a reputation in North America as convention centres because one can walk around them at night without getting mugged and because they are a different kind of urban space than that which many American cities are currently able to provide.

The convention centre is close to being completed now. It will benefit from this tax exemption, which essentially is the regional municipality saying, "We will not pay tax to ourselves." They are saying this, however, through the legislation with respect to school taxes as well. I hope this is borne in mind by the Ministry of Education when some of the tax changes are being made, because it is the government that is supporting this particular change with respect to the convention centre.

Most of the other issues here are routine, but I would echo the sentiments of the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and reiterate what I have been saying in this Legislature from the days when I was municipal affairs critic back in the early 1970s. That is, surely the time has come when regional municipalities can be deemed to have grown up enough to take over the responsibility of having an elected chairman rather than an appointed one.

People would think it ludicrous, they would think this province was like Argentina, if we had a system whereby the Legislature were to pick from all the 8.5 million people who do not stand for election the man or woman who would be the Premier of the province. Yet that is essentially the situation which now exists de facto for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. It exists here in Metropolitan Toronto and in the other eight or nine regional municipalities across the province.

It does not make sense. Democratically, it is a lousy system. It means that for the electors, for the citizens, there is absolutely no way they can directly influence any action taken by the regional chairman. The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) is well aware of the degree of power enjoyed by the regional chairmen because in another age, when he was wearing another hat and was actively engaged on the Toronto council, he could see first hand how much power is held by that office, particularly when the regional or Metro chairman is not directly responsible to any electors.

The regional chairmen traditionally can form alliances. They are the only members of the regional councils who work full-time on regional business because all other members of the regional councils have local concerns. The other members of council, being politicians, tend to respond more frequently and more directly to the political concerns expressed to them by their constituents at the area municipality level of government.

Essentially, there is one person on each regional council who works at it full-time and who can focus on what the regional council or government does full-time. There are 15, 20 or 25 others who can only do it part-time and who are torn because politically the action is at the lower level of government.

In addition to that the regional chairman, because of the time he spends on the job and because of his power, is the only member of the regional council who has any real clout with the regional staff. The regional chairman acting in his administrative capacity as chairman is privy to all the information and exercises executive control in many cases over the regional staff.

In other words, if one wants a pothole fixed or an equivalent kind of service from a regional municipal government, one has to be friends with the regional chairman because he can decree whether the pothole gets fixed, whether one's project is put high on the list of local priorities or whether it is forgotten, delayed by a couple of weeks, not done or deferred until the next year.

No power is absolute. No power of a regional chairman is absolute. None the less, universally the regional chairmen -- this is not just a situation in Metropolitan Toronto -- manage to exercise a degree of power which I believe might be warranted if they held elected office, but which I cannot believe is justified when they are not elected people.

While it is the case that many regional chairmen have held elected office locally or municipally, it is not universally the case. We have seen civil servants imposed on municipalities as regional chairmen by this government in certain cases.

Mr. Rotenberg: Once.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right. The parliamentary assistant acknowledges what I have said. He also points out it was once. The fact is a precedent has been set and it is possible for a regional council to decide to put in anybody it wants. It could appoint to the office of regional chairman a garbage collector, a ballet dancer, a Conservative, for God's sake, or someone who had never set foot in local government affairs. Theoretically, those persons could come in.

On motion by Mr. Cassidy, the debate was adjourned.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): 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 his chambers.

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

Bill 28, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Bill 84, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 111, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Bill 112, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Provincial Land Tax Act.

Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Bill 125, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act.

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act.

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

25 juin 1982