Journal des débats 1987-déc-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Today I received in my legislative office a letter from Carswell Legal Publications. It advertises a service for some $355 a year which basically seems to me to infringe somewhat on the services that are provided by our own Hansard.

It offers, for example, “a comprehensive, systematic and up-to-date information source at Queen’s Park.” It offers to cover “highlights of throne and budget speeches, acts affecting the status of legislation, government bills, private members’ public bills, private bills, public acts and private acts” -- in other words, all those things our Hansard service offers.

It does appear to me that some enterprising person in the private sector is utilizing most of the information which, I gather, would be taken directly from our Hansard services and is offering it for sale. It seems to me that is a breach of the members’ privileges here. I would like to forward a copy of this to you for your perusal. Perhaps subsequently you could give us a ruling on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly take a look at the material, and once I have seen it, I will do my best to respond to the House.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: Today we are beginning in committee the estimates of the Ministry of Housing. In going over what was actually spent in the last year, I find one of the things that is rather striking is the amount of money that was underspent, for example, in rent review.

The rent review program in the last fiscal year actually spent only 17.3 per cent of its estimated expenditures. There might be some who would say that is very careful planning on someone’s part, but the sad fact is that the reason it spent only 17 per cent of its budget is that for the last 11 months it has not really done anything. It perhaps could have been very busy perusing all of the 23,000 applications that are before it, but as yet no decisions of the rent review process in Ontario have been made public. So for the last 11 months, 23,000 people have had their applications held by the ministry without any decisions being rendered.

Obviously, it is causing immense problems for landlords, who do not know what rents to charge, and for tenants, many of whom will be faced with substantial amounts, should decisions ever be reached.

The television programs are full now of what is actually happening to people who will be expected to come up with $5,000 and $6,000 in arrears. It is ironic that rent review people themselves are indicating that by 1989 this system might work. In other words, it may, in two years’ time, tell us what was the legal rent two years ago.

MINISTER OF HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: Today marks the 96th day the Legislature has been sitting. It is time for a report card to be tabled on one of the newly appointed ministers, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). Her attendance in the House has been good, but she has been late every day, including today.

The minister has failed in every category in which she has been marked. No marks were given for sincerity, because this government was elected on September 10 on a lot of sincere promises. So the report card may be a little harsh because we have not included any marks at all in that category.

None the less, this minister has not answered any questions in the House. This minister has not taken any position on the Rouge Valley. This minister has not taken any position at all to defend the people who have problems with the Rent Review Hearing Board.

We believe this minister is at the bottom of the class, and unless she shows significant improvement in the next term, she may well want either to transfer or to be transferred.

It is somewhat disappointing for this highly acclaimed person to receive such a very poor report card. I think it is important for her to know that her future activities are critical.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will deliver this report card to the honourable minister and that she has time to reflect on it. The first 100 days are almost over; it is time for some action to live up to those Liberal promises.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chiarelli: Two weeks ago I was pleased to see the government award $24 million from the Premier’s technology fund to three very deserving research and development projects, including $2.5 million to Canadian Astronautics Ltd. in Ottawa West.

Such funding underlines this government’s commitment to improving Ontario’s and Canada’s records of industrial R and D at a time when the country’s level of R and D spending ranks a dismal 10th among the world’s 12 largest industrialized countries.

In 1984, the Prime Minister made the election promise to double R and D spending. However, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) brought to light at last month’s first ministers’ conference, the federal government’s contribution to R and D has actually declined in the last three years. In addition, both the federal free trade agreement and the federal white paper on tax reform neglect to promote R and D in Canada.

People are worried that the cards are stacked against our high-tech future at the very start of the international competitiveness game. For this reason, I strongly urge the Prime Minister of Canada to uphold his original commitment to assisting new technology in Canada and to put his research and development dollars where his mouth is.

INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS

Mr. Allen: Last June, the Fairview School for the Trainable Retarded in my riding closed its doors for the last time amid continuing apprehension among many parents and some teachers as to the future of the children integrated into the regular schools of the community.

The apprehension and the fears are gone, and a minor miracle is happening at the schools which have taken these children in. Children rush at recess from other classes to find their less-abled buddies, hug them, sit with them and play games, take them out to walk or play, wipe away a bit of slobber where necessary and tend to their personal needs.

Parents cannot believe the change in their children’s personalities and even improvements in their health. Child care workers notice a new ability to cope with change. Children who have barely been able to move with a walker are tackling the school’s corridors in an effort to be a part of the gang.

At Prince Philip junior school in my riding, the miracle is due to the careful and sensitive planning of principal Ted Ophoven and his staff. “English and math are important,” Ophoven says, “but this is a living, breathing curriculum. We do values education. Being a buddy to a handicapped friend is an important part of a well-rounded education.”

I say more power to the makers of modern miracles in the integrated programs of the public and separate schools of Hamilton and across the province.

ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Health. We were all saddened to hear of the recent death of a neighbour of mine, Fred Schouten, 36, of Oro township, who was the father of baby Gabriel, the infant born without a brain but kept alive so that her heart could be transplanted into another child. Our sympathy goes out to Fred’s young wife, Karen, during her time of great sorrow.

1340

The death of Fred Schouten of a heart attack and the transplant of his infant daughter’s heart so that another child might live focuses attention on a great need that faces the people of Ontario and across this country. It seems that when we pick up a newspaper or tune in the news on television or radio, we hear about miraculous transplants of hearts, lungs, kidneys, livers and other organs that give people new hope and new life, but we also hear about pleas from a relative of a patient who requires a transplant for the donation of a vital organ.

The public is responding well to the need for donors, but hospital and medical officials are hesitant to approach a family during its time of grief when a loved one dies to suggest the donation of organs. In 1984, a survey indicated that 88 per cent of families would have agreed to an organ donation if they had only been asked.

I believe the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) should have a medical official at each of the hospitals in Ontario designated to approach relatives in a tactful manner to discuss the benefits of organ donations and organ transplants when one’s loved one dies.

CONSERVATION FARMING ’88

Mr. Tatham: I wish to pose a question in the House. The question is this: Would you steal from your children?

No one in this place would answer yes, and yet we may just be stealing one of the basic birthrights of our children. Southwestern Ontario is the food basket of this province, and yet if we do not protect the very soil in which we grow our food and the feed for our livestock, we will be stealing our children’s birthright.

On June 28 and 29, 1988, Conservation Farming ’88 will take place in the beautiful farm land of Oxford county on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food research farm just north of Woodstock. This co-operative venture of OMAF, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the University of Guelph and Agriculture Canada, plus many other farm industry organizations, will demonstrate many ways we can conserve and better use our soil and water.

Six exhibitors will be on hand and we expect up to 10,000 visitors. I can assure the members of a pleasant and informative day in the beautiful pastoral food lands of Oxford county. I will guarantee a minimum of 21 degrees centigrade and ceiling and visibility unlimited. Let me extend a warm invitation to join me on those days, June 28 and June 29, 1988, in the banner county of Oxford.

MUNICIPAL ROADS

Mr. Farnan: Over the past two decades, successive governments have allowed the deterioration of our roads. In this period, taking inflation into account, the government has reduced spending on new highways by more than 70 per cent. In 1986-87, spending on municipal roads has fallen some 26 per cent from the high of fiscal year 1974-75.

Many municipalities are currently being forced to spend dollars that had been allocated for much-needed construction on roads and bridge maintenance just to hold the road system together.

Is it not time the province took its responsibility seriously? I urge the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to reverse this trend of benign neglect and to demonstrate some determination in resolving the crisis in the Ontario road system.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Today I would like to table in this assembly the text of the Canada-US trade agreement, which the federal government made public on Friday. I know all members will want to take the opportunity to examine the details and to assess the implications as soon as possible.

On an issue that is so vital to our nation, this Legislature must express its viewpoint. Tomorrow my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) will introduce a resolution expressing opposition to the proposed agreement.

Indeed, as Canada enters the next phase of one of the most pivotal national debates in our history, it is important that all Canadians take the time to study this proposed agreement and determine whether it is truly in the national interest. All governments have a responsibility to assist them in this process.

For that reason, the legislative committee on financial and economic affairs will begin to review the draft agreement this week, preparatory to a thorough debate in this assembly.

There are many aspects of this agreement to examine, many details to assess, but I wish to reiterate that the government of Ontario has seen nothing in the text to reduce our opposition to the agreement. This deal is simply not in the interests of Canadians.

This agreement fails to meet the federal government’s own objectives set out by Prime Minister Mulroney more than two years ago. Most important, it fails to secure access to the United States market for Canadian goods and services. It provides Canadian exporters with no assurance of fairer treatment and no relief from the US trade laws and the regulations that are being used to harass them now.

Under this deal, Canadian firms would still be vulnerable to harassment under US trade law. The proposed bilateral panel to review antidumping and countervail disputes would only be able to determine whether trade actions are consistent with US trade laws, laws from which Canada would not be exempted. Four of the five major US trade laws would remain unchanged by this agreement.

Canadian exporters could still be penalized in the United States as a result of Canadian policies and programs to promote our unique regional and industrial development needs. Under this agreement, Canada would not gain what we sought to gain. Worse, we will have given up much that we cannot afford to give up. We would give up our ability to pursue an independent energy policy in order to ensure a capacity to meet Canadian supply and regional development needs.

We would give up much of our ability to screen US investment in Canada and proposed takeovers of Canadian-owned firms, and to ensure that they benefit Canadians. We would weaken our ability to ensure a strong auto industry in Canada and give up levers to attract third-country auto industry investment.

This agreement would reduce tariffs simultaneously in both countries, despite the fact that Canadian tariffs start at a much higher level. This agreement would threaten important sectors of agriculture and food processing industries.

Under this agreement, Canada would give up far more than it gained. We all recognize that Canada cannot cling to the status quo and hope to put off the need to adjust to a new era in international trade. But this agreement does not provide the kind of change that will ensure Canada’s ability to compete in the future. A trade agreement with the United States is no substitute for a forward-looking industrial strategy. A trade agreement that reduces our policy options, as this one does, will only hinder our ability to pursue such a strategy.

This agreement fails to meet Canada’s immediate needs and it fails to advance us to our long-term goals. Moreover, it carries costs which Canadians simply cannot afford if we hope to maintain and strengthen our economy and our sovereignty as a nation.

Canadians are being asked to make one of the most important decisions in our history. It is not a decision that can be made lightly or hurriedly. The process for implementing this agreement is not a simple one, nor should it be. The release of this agreement does not represent the end of that process, but rather the beginning of a new and important debate.

Any decision that is so pivotal to Canada’s future must take into account the views of Canada’s people. As a government and as a Legislature, we must do all we can to ensure that the people have the opportunity they need to consider this agreement and to express their views.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I want to report to the members of this House today on the progress of the initiatives of the Ministry of Correctional Services with regard to the development and implementation of treatment and rehabilitation programs in our institutions.

I would like to tell the members that I am making it one of the priorities of this ministry on an ongoing basis to focus on the evaluation and improvement of facilities in which offenders are placed. This must also include specialized facilities which address the special needs of offenders.

As some members may be aware, the Ministry of Correctional Services admits approximately 70,000 persons to its care and supervision each year. Of that number, approximately 45,000 remain under our jurisdiction to serve institutional sentences of up to two years less a day or probation terms of up to three years.

In this context, it is significant to note that approximately 15 per cent of incarcerated offenders could be considered to be in some need of some form of treatment which we hope will contribute to their chances of rehabilitation. The treatment I refer to ranges from occasional counselling to intensive psychiatric intervention for offenders suffering from psychiatric, psychological and behavioural problems.

The ministry’s present capabilities in the area of treatment are based primarily in three provincial facilities located in southern Ontario; these are the 220-bed Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton, the 50-bed Guelph assessment and treatment unit and a unit at Millbrook Correctional Centre.

1350

This government is committed to making more relevant its emphasis on the development in northern and eastern Ontario, and this must include the expansion of treatment and rehabilitation centres on a regional basis. The first of these, the 84-bed Rideau Correctional and Treatment Centre at Burritts Rapids, was opened just over a year ago. There are 20 beds for assessment purposes and 64 beds for treatment and rehabilitation. Referrals are accepted, first, from the eastern region; second, from the northern region, and, if beds are still available, from other geographic regions.

As part of the government’s northern initiatives, we have identified a need for improved levels of service to residents of northern Ontario. To this end, we are currently finalizing plans for a second regional treatment centre, a 96-bed facility to be located in Sault Ste. Marie. This will eliminate the need to send some offenders from northern communities far away from their homes to facilities in the south, where they will get special treatment needs.

I am pleased to announce today additional improvements in our treatment capabilities. First, the ministry intends to provide for the special treatment needs of female offenders with the development of a 24-bed treatment unit at the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton. This is significant because, while female offenders comprise only a very small percentage of our offender population, this recognizes their special needs and establishes a permanent treatment facility to service those needs. Second, we will expand the Guelph assessment and treatment unit from its present 50 treatment beds to 72 beds. Renovations will be completed over the winter and the unit will become fully operational early next year.

These initiatives will take advantage of existing space and facilities. Conversion of available resources, along with the expansion, will be undertaken on a highly cost-efficient basis, in keeping with our government’s commitment to service our population, whatever segment of the population it may be, within a framework of fiscal responsibility.

These facilities will offer a full range of psychiatric, psychological and social work services which will complement rehabilitative programs already in place. The ministry has recently completed an expansion of its province-wide network of psychiatric services available through private psychiatrists on a fee-for-service basis. These practitioners operate under a contract with the ministry, working with offenders in institutions as well as those under community supervision.

In summary, the Ministry of Correctional Services is deeply committed to the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders in our care who have special needs. What I have outlined today, I believe, is a worthwhile commitment which is in the long-term best interests not only of the offenders we set out to assist but also of the communities from which all offenders originate and to which all will eventually return.

CONSERVATION LAND

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I will be introducing the Conservation Land Act in the House today. This act is an indication of this province’s commitment to preserving natural heritage sites in Ontario. I am sure it will make a number of land owners in Ontario very happy. The purpose of the Conservation Land Act is to recognize the outstanding contribution which privately owned conservation and heritage lands make to Ontario’s culture.

The act provides the legislative framework to establish a new program that will provide a monetary incentive to property owners who maintain the special features of these lands. To that end, the act establishes the basis for the conservation land tax reduction program, and that is exactly what it is. The act will recognize provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest, significant wetlands, some lands within the Niagara Escarpment planning area, non-revenue-producing lands belonging to conservation authorities and other land owned by nonprofit organizations.

Under this program, owners of these specific conservation lands will be provided with a 100 per cent rebate on municipal taxes. In effect, the province is proposing to pay the property taxes of these lands as a way of encouraging the owners to maintain the special feature of these lands. The House may be aware that in the past the tax situation did not recognize conservation lands. It did, however, recognize agricultural and managed forest lands. These lands are already eligible for tax rebates.

The conservation land tax reduction program will put conservation land on the same footing as agricultural and managed forest land. By offering this kind of material support to the owners of conservation lands, we are telling them that we recognize the important role they play as stewards of our heritage lands. We trust this will also be an incentive to land owners to not convert conservation lands to other uses.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue on this program. We are pinpointing the provincially significant conservation lands, and their owners, that will qualify for the tax rebate program. This involves hundreds of thousands of hectares of land and many thousands of owners.

Following approval of program details, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be contacting these land owners in March 1988 to inform them about the new program and their eligibility for a tax rebate. This rebate will apply to taxes which have been paid since January 1, 1987.

We estimate the cost of the program will be about $5 million annually, but the benefits to this province far outweigh this cost.

Nonprofit organizations, conservation authorities and private land owners who have long recognized the value of heritage lands will welcome this initiative. I am certain it will demonstrate to land owners that this province is committed to working as partners with land owners in preserving conservation and heritage lands.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Hon. Mr. Mancini: It is my pleasure today to announce a second phase of a home renovation fund for parents of dependent disabled children. These additional funds will allow 87 Ontario families with disabled children to modify their homes to provide for more physical accessibility.

The first phase of the fund was launched on May 1, 1987. The fund was part of the $5.4 million in housing initiatives for disabled persons which was originally announced in January this year. At that time, the office for disabled persons did provide $1.7 million to the Easter Seal Society to set up a one-year program to assist families in making their homes more physically accessible.

Just four months into the program, the entire fund had been committed to 125 families. Therefore, I am pleased that we can now assist an additional 87 families who meet the criteria and have been tentatively approved for funding with an additional $1.1 million which now completes the program.

Through this fund, families with a disabled dependent child living at home could receive up to $20,000 for home renovations. Priority has been given to home owners with the greatest need who have a low to moderate family income.

In a moment I would like the Legislature to welcome a typical family which will receive a grant from phase 2 of the Easter Seal grant fund. In your gallery are Joan and Doug Booth of Weston, Ontario, and their six-year-old daughter, Laura, who uses a wheelchair due to spina bifida. Mrs. Booth tells me that Laura is enjoying her regular grade 1 classes at Dixon Grove Junior and Middle School. The Booths are accompanied today by Norman Riddiough, president of the Easter Seal Society, executive director Ian Bain and director of services Joe Cashen.

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Laughren: I want to reply to the statement by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on the Canada-United States free trade agreement. I am truly amazed at the Premier’s statement. What he has really said is that he continues to oppose the free trade agreement but has given us no indication what he intends to do from this point on. I am sure that if the Americans are listening and if Mr. Mulroney is listening, they will say, ‘Well, we have certainly heard that line before,” and go back to sleep.

There is no sense of outrage in the Premier’s statement over article 103, which is clearly an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the provinces, nothing at all on article 1402, which deals with services and investment, or on article 2010, which deals with the whole question of crown corporations.

The statement the Premier has just made is no message to anyone, either in Ottawa or in Washington. Surely it is time the Premier told us what his plans are. We know he is opposed to the free trade agreement. What nobody knows is what he intends to do about it from this point on. We know that the agreement does not come into place until January 1989. We know there is a six-month pullout or withdrawal clause in the agreement. What we do not know is what the Premier intends to do in the next year.

1400

The die is not cast yet. It is not in cement yet. We have a whole year before this free trade agreement takes place. What we want to know is what the Premier intends to do in the next year.

I can tell members that other groups in our society have not given up. Most MPPs in this assembly have not given up. Women’s groups across Canada have not given up. The farmers of Ontario have not given up. The auto parts manufacturers of this province have not given up. They stated clearly their opposition to this agreement and that they intend to fight it. We believe it is time the Premier told everybody concerned exactly what he intends to do in order to fight this agreement.

CONSERVATION LAND

Mr. Wildman: I wish to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) in regard to the introduction of the conservation land tax reduction program.

I welcome the minister’s commitment to the preservation of heritage conservation lands and wetlands in the province, but I am concerned that it takes the form of a land tax reduction program. The minister in his statement recognizes that agricultural and managed forest lands are already treated in this way by the government. It would seem that if a farmer is already getting 100 per cent land tax reduction for his farm land, there is no incentive in this program to prevent that farmer from draining lands that should be preserved for conservation and wildfowl.

Why is the minister not recognizing that his proposal will not prevent the further drainage of wetlands in southern Ontario even though we have approximately only 13 per cent of those wetlands left?

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Farnan: Replying to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay), there was much fanfare in his statement about expanded treatment facilities. However, the minister will agree that for the most part the government is simply providing some small degree of professional staff, where for too long this professional treatment has not been provided. There are very minor program improvements and a very great deal requires to be done to meet the real needs, particularly in the area of female offenders.

In my visit to the Vanier Institute recently, there were no new beds and no new facilities there. We simply had one additional staff. On the whole, programs in correctional institutions are below the needs of the offenders in order that there be rehabilitation. I would urge that the minister address these needs, not so much with fanfare but with real substantive programs. We hope this ministry will provide the types of programs that are needed so that all of the offenders within the program can obtain rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Allen: I welcome the announcement from the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini). It is grand to have an expansion of this program. It would help the housing needs of the disabled if he would only get on with forcing the proclamation of their rights to reasonable accommodation in the Human Rights Code.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Sterling: We are not surprised today to read the statement of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with regard to the free trade agreement. It is basically the same position he took before he read the agreement, so we do not find a great deal in this particular statement.

I only hope that when we get to the select committee dealing with this matter, perhaps this government will start to listen to both sides of the story, will start to produce documents which tell both sides of the story and look at this free trade agreement as a positive step for Canada, a step we can take advantage of to expand our trade and create many, many jobs in our province and in our country.

We think it is a positive agreement. We think it was a positive step for Canada when this agreement was signed and we think it will, indeed, be a positive step for our province.

We only hope that now, when we have the final document, he will quit hiding behind rhetoric and face the issues head on.

Mr. Pope: Again on the statement of the Premier with respect to the free trade agreement, I think the people of Ontario and the members of this Legislature should recall the track record of this Premier and this government when it comes to trade matters.

It was this Premier who, on October 20, 1986, told the Globe and Mail and the Toronto reporters that he had been snookered by Ottawa over the softwood lumber deal. That was 25 days after he had instructed his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources to sign a national consensus arrangement with the federal government that allowed for the imposition of an export tax on softwood lumber from Ontario lumber mills to the American market. The same Premier said he had no idea about what Pat Carney was talking about in Washington on October 1, and he made that statement on October 20. Twenty-five days earlier, he had knowingly authorized his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources to sell the softwood lumber industry down the drain in this province and cost a job loss of 500 people in northern Ontario.

The same Premier who announces he will refer the free trade agreement to a standing committee is the Premier who, not too many weeks ago, announced a referral of the Meech Lake accord to a committee and then announced that his government members would be instructed to vote for the Meech Lake accord and would accept no amendments to it.

I am willing to predict that this same Premier will instruct the Liberal members of this committee to oppose the free trade agreement, not to listen to any presentations or arguments and not to allow any amendments to the free trade agreement. This whole thing is a scam. The Premier has never changed his mind, and with respect to trade matters in this province, he will sell the interests of Ontarians down the drain, given the opportunity.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs. Marland: I too am happy to hear the announcement of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) on the Easter Seal grant for home renovation.

I would just wish, on behalf of the many other families in Ontario with disabled children and disabled adults, that it were possible for me to assist the minister in the cabinet sweepstakes at the cabinet table, because I would like to see another area of funding which was announced by this government in the middle of June this year -- which is soon going to be six months ago -- and that is the disabled access fund, for which as yet we do not have a criterion of eligibility. Six months later we have got a $15-million access fund, and I have to wonder where it is going to go and when it is going to be applied, or whether it is going to be like the high-tech fund, which gets all the fanfare of the announcement but in fact does not end up with any allocations within that given year.

So I share the concern the minister has. I just wish he had a stronger lobby among his confreres at the cabinet table.

CONSERVATION LAND

Mr. Pollock: I would like to reply to the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on the Conservation Land Act. I am looking forward to studying this particular act. I hope it will protect 400 acres in Smith township in Peterborough county right across from Lakefield. I understand the residents there are very concerned about those 400 acres because a proposed gravel pit will start up right next to it, and they are concerned that these 400 acres of wetlands be protected. They rate, along the same lines, as provincially significant.

As I say, I would hope this will protect those wetlands. I understand this act has been two years in the making, so let us hope it protects a lot of the wetlands in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Laughren: Members should know that I am here today on my feet because my leader is in Washington, where perhaps the Premier should be.

I have a question to the Premier concerning the free trade agreement and his announcement. The Premier would know that you do not have to read very far into the agreement -- article 103, as a matter of fact -- to see how the agreement encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. If I might quote: “The parties to this agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance...by state, provincial and local governments.”

Can the Premier give us his assurances that he does not feel, and will not be, bound by that part of the free trade agreement, and tell us what he is going to do about it?

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend raises a very good point. That is a clause that, on the face of it, commits various levels of government to take, as he says, all necessary measures to implement clauses in the agreement. That potentially could have very far-reaching effects, not only in terms of legislation and regulations but indeed in policy as well. Our legal experts -- and we have many of them -- are led by the eminent counsel the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who has been applying his highly trained legal mind to that particular question.

There is no question that raises very serious questions from our point of view, not only on the question of federal-provincial allocation of powers, between section 91 and section 92 and who in fact has the right to implement that -- we can take specific examples like the wine deal, for example, and ask ourselves the question, “Does the federal government have the right to impose its version of the free trade agreement on a province?” We could take that back to 1936, to the labour convention cases and a variety of others, which would say that in our opinion they do not have that right to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I could go on at great length, and I am sure the Attorney General could go on at even greater length than I could, about some of the potential jurisprudence that could arise from this situation. That being said, let me say to my honourable friend, it is very worrisome. That clause particularly is extremely worrisome. I should tell my honourable friend that the Attorney General will be speaking tomorrow at noon, I believe, to the Canadian Bar Association on this very subject.

I am confident that not only my friend opposite but other members of this House, other attorneys general and other provinces that historically have taken a very strong line about provincial rights will have very great concerns on this, as we do.

Mr. Laughren: I think that silver-tongued devil Simon Reisman was right: The Premier is old-fashioned in these matters.

I wonder if I could remind the Premier, first of all, that he did not answer my question as to what his intentions were now, as to whether or not there would be a constitutional challenge to article 103 of this free trade agreement.

Also, I would ask the Premier if he recalls that just a little while ago in this assembly his Liberal colleagues voted down a resolution put forward by this party which would have given strength to the Premier’s hand to refuse to implement anything in the free trade agreement that encroached on Ontario’s jurisdiction and would have encouraged the province to pursue any legal, jurisdictional or political avenues that were within the means of this province to stop this deal dead in its tracks.

What we still do not know from the Premier is what he intends to do. Will he make a commitment here today to launch the constitutional appeal, refer the matter to the highest court -- the Ontario Court of Appeal, I guess -- and also go to Washington, I would hope with some of his senior colleagues and with the leader of the official opposition, so that there is absolutely no mistake in the minds of those people in Washington that Ontario, as a major jurisdiction, is firmly and unalterably opposed, as the Premier would say, to this free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, I think Washington and all its various emanations are quite familiar with the point of view of Ontario. If they are not, I am sure that through the sheer eloquence of the member’s esteemed leader in Washington today he will persuade everyone there that he is, of course, right.

Let me say to my honourable friend, there is some considerable question of the efficacy of launching a legal challenge on the agreement or implementing legislation that comes after that. My honourable friend would have his own legal opinions on that matter, just as many other eminent counsel have opinions on that as well. We are looking at all those questions, because in a sense it is uncharted juridical territory for all of us.

To answer my honourable friend’s question, we have said -- and I said it today again -- that we will not be implementing those sections that are under provincial jurisdiction. That is the clear answer to his question.

The second point, however, and a more complicated one, is does this in any way jeopardize our capacity to regulate in the future. Probably it does. The question is, at which point does that become a justiciable item or something to be referred to the courts? Is it at the point of a particular legislative or a policy enactment by the federal government and/or the provincial government?

I say to my honourable friend I am very mindful of the situation we are in, although the best legal advice on that matter is not clear at the moment. It seems to me it would probably be something around a specific act of a specific Legislature that would lead to a potential court challenge on this agreement.

Mr. Morin-Strom: According to senior trade officials in the United States, as quoted in Saturday’s Toronto Star, the approval of all 10 provinces may well be required before the US Congress will agree to this agreement. Will the Premier give us his assurance today that he will be officially notifying the President of the United States and the members of the US Congress that Ontario does not accept this agreement, is fighting this agreement and will not be implementing any portions of this agreement that have to do with provincial jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will put in a phone call this afternoon to the President if the member recommends it. My guess is he will not take my call but, in addition to that, my guess is that --

Mr. Brandt: I’ll call him for you.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He will probably take the leader of the third party’s call, since he has direct access to the Prime Minister and the President. Perhaps my honourable friend should phone the President, being as close as they are.

I am very mindful of what some senators in the United States have said. In fact, if their interpretation is correct, I say to my honourable friend the deal is dead. It is that simple, because Ontario does not support it, Prince Edward Island does not support it, nor does Manitoba. If their interpretation is correct, then the deal obviously will not go any further.

I think we have been forthright in putting forward our position. We chat regularly with a number of eminent people in Washington. They are all clear about our position on this matter. Whether the President himself knows exactly, frankly, I am not in a position to explain what the President of the United States knows or does not know.

Mr. Laughren: I think I heard for the first time, and perhaps others have heard it before, the Premier say he would not implement any provisions of this free trade agreement that fall under provincial jurisdiction. I believe that is the first time I have heard the Premier say that in such a general way, and I agree with him.

What I am wondering now is whether the Premier will give us his firm commitment, in view of the fact that article 103 certainly does encroach on provincial jurisdiction, that he will officially notify the federal government that there will be a constitutional challenge to this article of the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, who believes it is the first time he has heard it, that I have said it at least 10 or 15 times prior to this. I cannot account for my honourable friend’s hearing problems or comprehension problems, but many other people know what I have said on this subject and I am happy to explain again.

The member’s legal advice to me, presumably, is that article 103 is challengeable in the Supreme Court by way of reference. Other people do not necessarily agree with his opinion. I would be interested in hearing my honourable friend’s legal advice on this question, the basis in law on which he puts forward his position.

The Attorney General is in a position to discuss this with the member and anyone else at any time they would like. Maybe he has a better lawyer over there than the Attorney General. If so, he should have him or her stand up right now --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is the answer right there.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The lawyer is away today.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I am pleased to see the Premier’s spine stiffening in this regard.

Perhaps I could issue a challenge to the Premier so that the notice can go out very clearly to everybody concerned that in view of the fact that energy is clearly under provincial jurisdiction and in view of the fact that the Premier, during his northern conference up in Thunder Bay a couple of weeks ago, was presented with a demand from the northern Ontario chambers of commerce to implement special hydro rates in northern Ontario as a tool for economic development, will the Premier make a commitment now that, almost as a challenge to the free trade agreement, he will implement subsidized energy -- hydro rates -- in northern Ontario as a tool for economic development?

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to compliment my honourable friend on his craft of sneaking that little thing into the question. He is saying that he stiffened my spine, and I just do not accept the honourable member’s -- well, it is better than hardening of the arteries. At least I know what has been happening in this discussion during the last couple of years.

My honourable friend would like me now to challenge that by cutting rates across the board in northern Ontario, which is quite a different question. I met with a number of representatives of the northern municipalities who asked me the very same thing, and I said that Ontario Hydro --

Mr. Laughren: You’re afraid of Simon Reisman.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I said then, “No, Ontario Hydro has offered incentive rights for new development and new jobs in northern Ontario, particularly thermo-mechanical pulping.”

Mr. Pouliot: No; wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am just telling the member they have, whether he knows it or not. His friends are obviously as uninformed as he is about what is going on in this government and that is okay. I do not mind. I am happy to use this Legislature to bring them up to speed on the progressive, dynamic moves and the positions this government is taking. But I say to my honourable friend and to the member, in all fairness, we are prepared to use Ontario Hydro as a development agency to create jobs, but as far as an across-the-board cut is concerned, that is not the approach we will take. We want to see that translated into real, new jobs and real, new development. That is the approach we are taking. I understand my friend trying to use a back door to try to get a cut in northern Ontario, but I want to disabuse him of any notions he may have in that regard.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Back to the real issue: The trade deal is a bad deal. The people of this province want to know: How is the Premier going to stop this deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have said to my honourable friend before, and I think one has to be very realistic about this, the federal government has the right to make treaties in areas of its jurisdiction. There are a number of areas, in our view, they do not have the right to make treaties in, in particular things like wine pricing. My honourable friend and others have raised the question of section 103 and the potential constitutional implications of that in the future. I have discussed that issue today, so I will not restate the point of view I have expressed.

I have said to the member before some times --10 or 15 times, but my friend may not have heard it and I am very happy to repeat it because his honourable leader for the day has not heard the point -- ultimately, the determination will be made by the people of this country passing judgement in a federal election. That is where the ultimate judgement will be.

My views are very clear on this, the member’s views are very clear on this and I guess the third party’s views are very clear on this as well. So we will engage in a wholesome debate on the facts, we will all make our contribution, and I can assume now it will not be unanimous, but I think this province has put forward its views in a thoughtful and constructive way, in a nonpolemical way, and at the same time has come to a reasoned conclusion that this deal is not in the interests of this province nor, in our judgement, in the interests of this country, that we are sacrificing tools of development in the future --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The Premier is absolutely correct when he indicates that the position with respect to free trade is not unanimous. I find it somewhat strange when the Premier put forward, as the members of my party are certainly aware --

Mr. Speaker: Your question is to the Premier?

Mr. Brandt: It will be ultimately, yes. I am glad you anticipated that is to whom I was going to present the question, Mr. Speaker.

During the course of the election campaign, the Premier put forward six concerns that he had relative to the free trade agreement. He said if those concerns in fact could be responded to, could be answered, perhaps Ontario’s position might be somewhat different as it relates to free trade.

Let me assure the Premier, with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism, that in fact is in the deal and has been strengthened in the final draft; that the regional incentives that Canada and many of the provinces in Canada wish to remain intact are unimpaired in this agreement; that there are safeguards for the agricultural industry with respect to marketing boards and a whole host of other safeguards that are built in, and that our cultural industries are, in fact, intact. There is screening of foreign investment and the auto pact is intact.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: What an interesting reading.

Mr. Brandt: The member may laugh as he will, but I tell the Premier that the auto pact can be removed in a 12-month period by either side, as he well knows. We have more safeguards than we have ever had.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Brandt: Why is the Premier against this deal, recognizing that the majority of his conditions have been met and it is a good deal for Ontario and for Canada?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Now this specific discussion has been joined by my honourable friend. I know my honourable friend had a thorough and complete briefing by one of the foremost experts on this, the Prime Minister, last week. Presumably, the opinion the member is giving me now is the one the Prime Minister has given him.

He is completely, 100 per cent wrong. We have not achieved access into the United States. The dispute settlement mechanism enshrines US trade-remedy law. They have now put another super-extraordinary panel over the top.

The whole issue was secure access into the United States. That is what the Prime Minister said; that is what Ambassador Reisman said; that is what Miss Carney said, that we are going to get rid of the use of countervail and antidumping and it has not happened. It is a binational panel that only enshrines the implementation of US law.

Mr. Brandt: You are absolutely wrong.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is absolutely right. I say to my honourable friend that the auto pact has been gutted. There are no safeguards for Canada. We have excluded the multinationals. The auto parts manufacturers who are against this thing realize there will be an erosion of jobs to the United States.

We are wiping out our grape growing industry by this particular situation.

Mr. Brandt: Absolutely not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are not? My honourable friend can stand up and tell his friends in the Niagara Peninsula, the wineries and the grape growers that they are going to do better under this deal, because I can assure my honourable friend that if he believes that, there are only two people who do, himself and the Prime Minister.

We go down the list of various things to which we think the conditions have not been met. In my opinion, these conditions have not been met and the people of this province have passed judgement on that.

In addition to that, there are many other things we think are faulty. It is not limited to only those six conditions, but to a deal that we do not believe is in the national interest.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to only one area of the agreement that was referred to in the response of the Premier, he should be aware of the fact that the dispute settlement mechanism is in place as it is because Canada demanded the right to bring forward certain regional incentive programs which we wish to have intact.

Does the Premier not think the Americans should have the right to review incentive programs of the various provinces, the content and the detail of which we are not prepared to provide them at this time? Does he not think it is only fair that a deal be two-sided and that it work in favour of the Americans and in favour of the Canadians? Does he want it only one way? What is his position on that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are going to have a very wholesome and thorough debate in this House, because we have the New Democratic Party representing its position and the Liberal Party and the government representing their position. Now we have a very clear spokesman for the American government right here in our House, and we will hear that voice expressed very clearly.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting to note that Treasury officials indicated this was a good deal as well, so I guess they are on the side of the Americans.

Let me make this clear to the Premier: I am on the side of what is good for Ontario and good for Canada. I think perhaps he should take a little broader view of what the makeup of this country is and what is important to this province and to this country.

Let me ask the Premier once again, will he review his position on the free trade deal, offer some constructive suggestions on how to improve the deal, but join with the majority of provinces and the majority of premiers in this country who want to improve and guarantee their access to American markets for Canadian goods and products?

1430

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that he has been hoodwinked by the Prime Minister in his private briefing if he believes this is going to bring secure access into the United States. He can talk to whomever he wants to talk to who knows something about it. He can talk to his lawyers, talk to his experts. I say to my friend, as honourably as I can and as honestly as I can, he is wrong in his understanding.

Then he says to me, “Go and try to improve the deal.” The situation cannot be improved. It is there for him to take or for us to take. It is not changeable at this moment.

My honourable friend does not understand the process that has gone through. The deal is there. It was a bad deal. We would have been prepared to look at a good deal, but this was a deal that was driven by political imperatives by some of his colleagues in Ottawa who were prepared to give away far more than we got back.

I ask the member to look at it in straight commercial terms. I say to my friend, do not feel obliged to that regime in Ottawa. I invite my honourable friend to look at this, to apply his highly trained -- I was going to say legal mind -- highly trained musical mind to this question. I say to my honourable friend that he will change his view after he gets into the details on this.

Mr. Brandt: This is not a question. On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I only wanted to indicate to the House that in fact the deal is not in concrete and is not specific with respect to all points but --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Brandt: I will give my second question to the member for Burlington South.

Mr. Harris: It was a good point, though.

Mr. Brandt: You spent seven hours getting briefed; why didn’t you read the deal? You should have read the deal.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Sarnia would let the member for Burlington South ask a question.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. I would like to raise an issue which I have raised over the last two weeks in this House.

Prior to the arbitrator’s report in the Hamilton-Wentworth school dispute, he said he did not understand “what the great hardship is” in having public schools transferred to the separate school system. The arbitrator in the Hamilton-Wentworth dispute completely ruled out sharing after the minister interfered with the arbitration process and recommended that public schools be transferred to the separate school system.

Does the minister not recognize that he has sent a clear message to the separate boards that if their local negotiations fail and they request that his ministry arbitrates that dispute, they will likely be awarded the transfer of whole public school buildings in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to indicate to the member for Burlington South that indeed the arbitrator, when appointed, clearly recognized that he had the full range of options available to him in attempting to effect a solution.

I also want to indicate to the member that this ministry encourages any means by which settlements can be achieved, whether it be through the sharing of facilities or whether it be through lease arrangements, and no mechanisms are precluded from being put into effect to achieve a consensual solution at the local level.

Mr. Jackson: Regardless of what the minister would like us to believe, we now have proof that that is in fact the message he has sent to school boards in Ontario.

According to Rosemary Speirs’s article in the Toronto Star last Friday, one of the strategies being considered by the Metropolitan Separate School Board is to jettison local negotiations as quickly as possible in the belief that ministry arbitration will not force it to share but will force the transfer of whole school buildings from the public board.

To reverse the message he has clearly sent to the Metro separate school boards and all other school boards throughout this province, will the minister intervene in the Toronto situation to make it perfectly clear that he supports the spirit behind Bill 30 and that expansion of one school system would never be accomplished at the expense of another?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In response to the member for Burlington South, I can tell him that I have no intention to intervene directly into the ongoing negotiations that are taking place between the Metro separate school board and the Metro public board.

I will indicate, though, to the member that over the course of the past three months I have had many opportunities to meet with separate and public school boards throughout this province. I have consistently urged upon them the necessity to negotiate to the best of their abilities to arrive at consensual solutions; in fact, the ministry has in no way encouraged an automatic movement to arbitrated settlements.

Mr. Jackson: That response just is not good enough. If the minister has seen the article in the Toronto Star of last Friday, if he is aware of what is now happening or creeping into the very delicate negotiations that are occurring between the two Metro boards, he cannot stand back and watch as the situation in Hamilton gets worse and watch the potential for it to resurface here in Toronto.

The minister refuses to see that his approach in this matter has already ripped apart one community in this province and has the risk of creating similar problems in this community of Metro Toronto. Since he persists in waffling on preserving public education in the context of the protections in Bill 30, is he refusing to intervene in the Toronto dispute? Will he at least urge the cabinet to repudiate the arbitrator’s recommendations in the Hamilton-Wentworth dispute as quickly as possible so that harmony can be restored in the Hamilton-Wentworth area and we can prevent a repeat of that situation in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member for Burlington South should know as well as anybody in this House the mechanisms that are now contained in the Education Act as a result of the process of developing Bill 30. The member for Burlington South, I recall, was intricately involved in the formulation of that legislation and participated in the all-party committee on Bill 30.

I want to remind the member for Burlington South that the legislation lays out precise mechanisms for dealing with accommodation disputes, and I can assure the member that it is my intention to respect the legislation and follow those processes.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the very disturbing study that the minister released last Friday about Ontario sewage treatment plants, which shows that there are dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls not only in the effluent but in the sludge from our sewage treatment plants. The release, of course, tells us that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is going to solve the problem but does admit that in the interim the minister is going to order the worst polluters to clean up at once.

Because both MISA and the Great Lakes water quality agreement commit this province to the virtual elimination of toxic substances in our waterways, can the minister guarantee that in cleaning up the worst polluters he will not negotiate control orders that allow industries to continue to discharge any dioxins or furans to the waterways of this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member identifies the study that our ministry undertook as part of the MISA program. One of the things we wanted to do in determining how we should best address not only those discharges which go directly into the waterways of the province but those which go indirectly into the sewer systems of this province was to do a study of a good cross-section of sewage treatment plants in the province.

Our study has identified problems. In fact, the study is not completed, but I thought it was necessary to get that information out early, even though we have further information on other materials that will come out later on. I wanted midway through the study to get this information out, as I know that is what the member would like to happen. In those cases where things are above present guidelines that are known anywhere, I want to ensure that in fact we identify and eliminate those sources.

It is always my goal to avoid control orders as they come on line, with the MISA program being close to us, that would in fact allow a continuation of an unacceptable level of any of the materials that we consider to be of great importance. But we think this study is exceedingly important. We think as well, as I know the member will, that part 1 of the Dillon study, which I released earlier this week, is also going to be important because it presents for us eight different potential options for dealing with the pipes that go into the sewer systems of this province, and by March of this coming year, which is three months away, we expect that we will be coming forth with the second stage of that which will identify the preferred option and we will be able to implement that.

1440

Mrs. Grier: All the courses of action the minister has outlined of course are very worth while. The only problem we have with them is that they all stretch indefinitely into the future. It may be some time before the results of those studies are in place.

I am very glad the minister released the information that he did last week. We found it very interesting. In fact, we found it particularly interesting that of the six sewage treatment plants that are showing detectable levels of PCBs, four are operated by the Ministry of the Environment. Of the 15 sewage treatment plants showing detectable dioxins and furans in the sewage sludge, eight are operated by the Ministry of the Environment.

Without waiting for further studies and further examination of options, can the minister tell the House very precisely what he intends to do to clean up his own sewage treatment plants?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member confuses -- I know not intentionally -- this for the public, as others do. I have heard this on a number of occasions. She makes it sound as though we have a sewage treatment plant that is there to produce dioxins, furans, PCBs and so on. That is not the case. They come from industries and other sources.

The purpose of the sewage treatment plants we have in effect is to treat as well as possible and as well as technology permits in 1987 the materials that come down there. We do not produce them. We have the sewage treatment plants there. The fact is that for the sewage treatment plants we employ at the present time we put on the best available technology at the time and then we upgrade it.

As the member knows -- she has said on many occasions that she agrees with me on this -- the real problems are those materials that are put into the pipes of Ontario and end up in the sewage treatment plants. By getting at the sources in those pipes and eliminating those sources from getting into the pipes, they are not stuck in a sewage treatment plant.

The member has never heard me say, as some people have said in the past, that sewage treatment plants are the solution and that you somehow build a sophisticated sewage treatment plant that gets hold of and captures everything. The member knows that is not true. l think environmentalists in this province know that is not true. We are going to do as she would like us to do first, get at the sources that get into the sewer system, and second, put as sophisticated equipment as possible on all plants.

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. On Thursday, I asked the Premier a question with regard to a conflict of interest in relation to our Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Today, I have written to John Black Aird and asked him to look into this whole matter with regard to a conflict of interest relating to the Bridlewood hydro corridor. Will he now ask Ontario Hydro to cease and desist with regard to all work on that corridor until Mr. Aird has given us his opinion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, I will not. I say to my honourable friend that he has done the correct thing. He has put the case before Mr. Aird, the acting independent commissioner, and he will give the member his opinion on the matter.

We are not going to hold up progress around here every time somebody stands up and alleges a conflict of interest, because I am sure we would hear much more of that. Every time anybody in opposition wants to stand up, he can allege a conflict of interest whether in fact it is right or not. They have every right to do that but they cannot expect government to stop functioning in the process. The member has written to the commissioner and he will give an opinion back. If he comes to the conclusion that there is, obviously we will have to deal with it.

Mr. Sterling: I would have thought the Premier might have shown a little bit more sensitivity and leadership towards this issue with regard to the people of Bridlewood. They feel very definitely that this Attorney General has had a conflict of interest with regard to this case.

I should also point out that it took only two days for Hydro to appear on the site and start construction after the residents of that community were told about the decision of cabinet. Since they are intending to go to court this Thursday with regard to an interim injunction to stop the actions of Hydro, will the Premier not save that community the expense of having to go through that matter and give it a fair hearing at this time? They deserve a fair hearing once and for all.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I understand his point of view on this particular matter, but surely, as a former member of the executive council, he understands the position the government is in as well. Fair hearings? How long has it been going on? Three or four years? Altogether, there have been hearings of the joint board, it has been to court and back and forth --

Mr. Sterling: That is part of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand that the person who does not like the result will feel there has not been a fair hearing, but it has gone on for ever, as my honourable friend will know. Obviously, we will never want to impair the rights of the people there to take it to any level of appeal they choose. But every time my honourable friend stands up and alleges some conflict of interest or somebody suggests that the government should not be doing something it is doing, it would bring government into complete paralysis.

I say to my honourable friend that I believe there has been a fair hearing on this, and I think it has to proceed and government has to make decisions some time. In the interests of all the people of this province, you cannot just sit back with every criticism that comes along and stop running the government.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not want to take very long, but I would like you to take into consideration a very vexing problem that now faces members of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

We have had referred to us the conflict-of-interest bill. The bill will be carried in committee by the Attorney General. We have just heard an allegation about the Attorney General having a conflict. I am questioning now in my own mind how the committee will proceed to carry a bill by a member against whom there has now been a formal allegation lodged with the interim commissioner.

I would not ask for a ruling on it now, but I would like you to take that matter under consideration, and perhaps before we adjourn for the break and the committee begins its work to process that bill further, address yourself to the obvious conflict of a minister carrying a bill on conflict of interest when there has been a formal complaint lodged with the commissioner.

Mr. Speaker: The member has brought a point to our attention and has requested that I look at it. I certainly will.

NORTHERN BROADCAST SERVICES

Mr. Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I am sure all members here are aware of the importance of television as a form of communication in northern Ontario. Television provides our northern communities with information links to our southern neighbours. It can also be an exciting forum for a strong link between the northern communities. Yet because of our low population density and often rugged geographic conditions, it has been difficult for us to obtain a wide variety of TV programming in the north. Is the minister aware of this situation and has she taken any steps to remedy it?

Hon. Ms. Munro: Yes, we are aware of the restrictions placed on northerners in getting accessible broadcast and nonbroadcast services into the north. In fact, for the first time as a province, we appeared before the federal standing committee on communications and culture to express our dismay.

There are several things we are trying to do right now, and I will just go over them briefly. We have what are called low-power rebroadcast transmission systems which go into uncabled communities, very small communities that the member, being from Kenora, no doubt is aware of. We do that in co-operation with other ministries, most notably the Ministry of Northern Development and the Ministry of Transportation. That program has seen $8.6 million put into it by the end of this fiscal year, 1986-87.

In January of this year, I believe the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) announced another program which would ostensibly look to very specific cable initiatives for television extension in the north. It would also involve the private sector, native community groups and on and on. We have gone on a very extensive public relations campaign and have over 105 applications for that particular northern extension program or, as we call it, TENO, the television extension to northern Ontario program. Of course, the TVOntario program has been going since the early 1980s. We hope that with Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission approval, we will be able to reach out in a more meaningful way to the north.

1450

Mr. Miclash: Some northern communities still do not have access to TVO. TVO has an excellent program schedule, and my constituents want to be able to benefit from its educational and cultural shows. Has the minister made any plans to ensure equal access to TVOntario for northerners?

Hon. Ms. Munro: Yes, we have. Under the low-power rebroadcast transmission program, we are looking at 15 applications now and will make announcements in mid-December. In addition to that, those uncabled communities also have access to the TENO program. If they do not have cable facilities or if private industry does not take up on the offer, then we will provide money to that program for those communities to be accessed. Kenora, for example, stands as a project application in very good stead, and we hope to be able to make an application to put that system in for TVO in the spring of 1988.

CHICKEN INDUSTRY IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows full well that, as a result of his decision, consumers in northern Ontario are still importing their chicken from Manitoba. The minister is also aware that the Trottiers from Nakina have been trying for well over a year to obtain permission for a quota system whereby the degree of consumption would be reflected by an equal degree of production in northern Ontario. The minister’s own Premier (Mr. Peterson) is on side. As a matter of public record, he supported the Trottiers’ initiative and, if my memory serves me correctly, termed it a tragedy that the north has never been the recipient of a quota. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) has asked the minister directly to make an allocation to northern Ontario.

Why is it, then, that in the face of this storm of reason, he stands alone indeed and still refuses to create social justice by at long last allocating a quota system for the people of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I thank the honourable member for his question and also for his concern. I was not with the Premier when he made his comments, but the reports I read indicated that the Premier expressed dismay that there was a lack of chicken quota policy in northern Ontario.

When the Trottier case first came to my attention through a request that I review the tribunal decision, I became somewhat concerned that there did not seem to be a chicken quota in the north, as there was a milk quota and egg quota, so I immediately instructed the Farm Products Marketing Board to work with the local supply management boards to assess their quota policy as it pertained to the north and to endeavour to take whatever measures were required to get quota in the north for chicken, as there is for milk and eggs.

Mr. Pouliot: Goodwill alone will not do it, but the minister has another crack at it. In fact, I am quoting from the Canadian Poultry magazine, which indicates, “Commencing on January 1, 1988, Ontario will receive an additional 4.5 per cent of the quota.”

Under this endeavour, will the minister make a commitment, sort of give us a guarantee, that the one tenth of the population that occupies nine tenths of the land will no longer have to come to southern Ontario, stay for a period of two years and then run away or import the quota up north; and that under that 4.5 per cent, by the stroke of a pen -- that is the minister’s job and he can do it -- he will do it so that the people of the north will be able to lessen the cost of chicken per pound by as much as 25 per cent if they are able to produce it up north?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I think the honourable member would agree that the first thing that is required is a feasibility study. The honourable member knows there are no processing plants in northern Ontario for chicken; absolutely none. The honourable member knows that historically there has not been a chicken industry in northern Ontario. That has to tell the honourable member, as it tells me, that for some reason a chicken industry to this point in time has not been feasible in northern Ontario or there would have been an industry there before now.

What I am going to do, and I am going to do it within a very short period of time, is have a feasibility study done. If indeed it shows that there can be a profitable chicken industry in the north, then I will take whatever measures I can to see that we do get a quota policy established for northern Ontario.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Marland: My question was for the Minister of the Environment, whom I did see speaking over here; there he is. It is based on the fact that a few weeks ago, when the Minister of the Environment responded to a question from my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) regarding the removal of the radioactive soil from the properties on McClure Crescent, the minister said there were problems related to ongoing actions within the court. Can the minister tell this House exactly what court actions he was referring to?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: A couple of court actions have taken place. The government of Ontario has been involved in some court action in a couple of instances and it has looked at the appeal process I believe as well that has potential from those. When I discussed this with my ministry officials, I did mention that potential for appeal and the appeal period of time and so on that would take place. I also indicated, as the member would know, that the word “radioactivity” should put in her mind something to be dealt with by the federal jurisdiction.

Mrs. Marland: The minister must know now that the decisions have been made on all the major court cases regarding this problem. He also knows that the federal government has formally indicated to his ministry that it has been ready to move the soil since the appeal period of the Reesor Road group was up. That appeal period was up in the middle of September, which is three months ago.

Surely the minister cannot be relying on the federal task force report released yesterday saying that it could take up to five years to select a site for the long-term disposal of low-level radioactive waste. We have at least a temporary site. These people have been waiting long enough. What is preventing the minister from moving the soil?

Mr. Brandt: Lack of will.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The leader of the third party obviously has a suggestion as to where the soil should go. I agree with the member for Mississauga South. I too was disappointed in the report that the federal government came forth with.

I think many of us felt that rather detailed study of the task force would produce a solution, not only for Ontario but also for Canada. The federal government has jurisdiction for matters dealing with radioactivity and nuclear wastes and, therefore, I was hopeful, as I am sure the member was, that the federal government would have had a solution to our problem.

If the member would like to say to the residents of any specific part of the province where she would like the radioactive soil to go to, I would be happy to tell the residents of that part of the province that she would like the soil to go there.

On the other hand, I can say to the member that we are hopeful, after further consultation, that the federal government, with its great expertise and with its sole jurisdiction over radioactive material, will be of some assistance in helping us in finding a solution to this problem.

Certainly, I am willing to entertain any and all suggestions that the federal government might make. I cannot commit myself to accepting any of their suggestions or recommendations but I can certainly commit myself to further consulting with them. Perhaps the member’s better course of action --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

1500

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

Mrs. O’Neill: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the minister is aware, the Ottawa Centre blood transfusion service of the Canadian Red Cross Society provides an essential and vital function, meeting the needs of 29 hospitals and serving over one million people in eastern Ontario.

The minister is also aware, from my previous discussion with her, that the Ottawa centre is overcrowded and is anxiously awaiting funding which will enable it to construct suitable facilities. Could the minister please tell the House what stage the capital funding process is at?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me acknowledge the concern of the member for Ottawa-Rideau and respond by saying that I recognize the need for a new transfusion centre in Ottawa. It is my understanding that the ministry is in the process at this time of reviewing the master planning documents and will be meeting with the Red Cross to discuss these plans very shortly.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms. Bryden: On Saturday outside the Eaton Centre, I joined a group of workers from McGregor Hosiery Mills who have been on a legal strike for about two months to obtain fair wages and working conditions. The workers and their supporters were asking shoppers to boycott McGregor socks because the company was paying wages of only about $6 an hour, was employing strikebreakers and was not bargaining in good faith.

When is the Minister of Labour going to bring Ontario’s labour laws into the 20th century and protect workers like these from employers who use strikebreakers and other unfair labour practices, such as the section 40 vote, as a substitute for genuine collective bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The labour dispute the member for Beaches-Woodbine is referring to has indeed been one that has had a great deal of tension, and the parties have not been able to come to an agreement on a whole host of matters. She may know, however, that at this point the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in many respects. I add, however, that as a result of a request under -- I cannot recall the section of the Labour Relations Act -- there is a vote on the employer’s last offer right at this point. l do not want to say much more about the dispute at McGregor Hosiery under the current circumstances.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister aware that McGregor Hosiery is using the free trade deal as a reason for keeping these women’s wages below the poverty line here in Canada in order to compete with low-paying United States companies? Is the minister prepared to support that kind of collective bargaining under labour laws in Ontario which permit this kind of unfair practice’? Will he adopt the bills introduced by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to outlaw strikebreaking as well as to bring other improvements to our collective bargaining process, which would resolve this kind of situation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure exactly what improvements to the Labour Relations Act might have resolved the situation at McGregor. I am familiar, obviously, with the proposals the member for Hamilton East has introduced in this House. I think I have told him on a number of occasions, and I will tell my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that we are in the process now of taking a thorough look at the Ontario Labour Relations Act and considering a wide variety of amendments. As we do that, there will be a process of consultation put in place where, I am sure, the issue of whether an employer in certain circumstances ought or ought not to be able to hire outsiders to come in and take the jobs of workers will be thoroughly canvassed.

We are not going to be able to answer that question today here in the House in the course of question period, but I just tell my friend and, through her, those workers at McGregor Hosiery that a wide variety of reforms are being looked at. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to bring about changes that would help in this specific dispute.

ARBITRATION BOARD RULING

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. A recent Ministry of Labour arbitration ruling forces Humber College to give a warlock or a witch two days off with pay to observe high holidays. At the risk of being struck by lightning, I wonder if the minister can tell this House if he agrees with the ruling and if he really thinks taxpayers should be forced to subsidize witchery in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure that if lightning struck the member for Nipissing, it would do much damage. I am not sure he should worry about that. He is one of the sturdier members of the third party. I think he has withstood a lot before and he could withstand that.

I am not really sure it is appropriate. I am familiar with the ruling. I have read about it. As Minister of Colleges and Universities in the last parliament, I knew the issue was before arbitrators and I think now before the board. The decision has been made by an appropriate adjudicative body and I think we just live with that ruling.

Mr. Harris: I am not sure that is the answer the people of Ontario are waiting to hear from one of the cabinet’s most famous conjurors. We are talking about Charles Arnold, elder of Spendweik Coven, if that is how you pronounce it, which he founded in 1984. They say witchery is misunderstood and I admit I am one who does not understand. I do not understand how this government --

Mr. Brandt: Where were they in the last campaign?

Mr. Harris: They were obviously on our campaign team.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: When you really needed them they were living in Sarnia.

Mr. Harris: I admit I am one who does not understand. I do not understand where they were either.

I do not understand how this government can recognize a religious entity formed just three years ago by a witch in Ontario, because that is what this ruling does. Before anyone starts to declare Hallowe’en a national holiday, will the minister assure us that he will review this decision and its ramifications with respect to more traditional religions in Ontario and with respect to government consideration given religions?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Which decision is it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend asked me which decision the member for Nipissing wants me to review.

Obviously, we have to look at this in a slightly broader context and find out which avenue we might take as a result of the decision. It is actually news to me that the organization, the coven I think it is, was formed in 1984. I am not sure the newness or oldness of the tradition is the appropriate factor one might look at.

There are a number of questions this decision raises. If my friend the member for Nipissing is suggesting that, whether under the Ontario Labour Relations Act or more appropriately perhaps the Employment Standards Act, laws applying to Sundays, holy days, Saturdays, Fridays, depending on the faith one adheres to, might be part of a consideration that we might undertake under a review of the Employment Standards Act, certainly I do not think that would be an unreasonable request. I think my predecessor, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) had undertaken some of that. If my friend wants me to look into witches while we look into a number of other things under the Labour Relations Act, I can only tell him that I would be delighted.

Mr. Speaker: I inform all members that I think that was an 80-second response.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that in the Speaker’s gallery we have with us today Donald Paterson, former member for Essex South. Please welcome him.

1510

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Dietsch: It gives me pleasure to introduce to the House a petition from the naturopaths group. I have a petition signed by 80 individuals from my riding or close to my riding that would introduce legislation to guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. I would like to present this to the House.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Poirier: I have two petitions. The first is from hundreds of citizens against site 10, which is one of two preferred sites in Ottawa-Carleton for disposal of waste. These people oppose very strongly the choosing of site 10.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Poirier: The second petition is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor by the people of the parent-teacher association of Our Lady of Wisdom Roman Catholic Separate School in Carleton, more precisely in Orleans. They are petitioning the government to make sure that in the next allocation for schools, the east of 10th Line English-Catholic elementary school is accorded.

Mr. Speaker: I have called for petitions and it is very difficult to know which members are standing to present petitions. Are there any more?

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Skills Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988:

Skills development program, $317,011,900.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988:

Ministry administration program, $7,905,400; policy and technology program, $25,124,000; small business, services and industrial assistance program, $62,508,800; industry and trade expansion program, $25,528,900; northern industry program, $5,197,800; Ontario development corporations program, $28,093,800.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 68, An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just very briefly, this bill is an omnibus bill. It deals with a number of issues that have accumulated over the last several years. Specifically, the bill is divided into six sections dealing with the following items: Metropolitan Toronto School Board, school business and finance, attendance at schools without payment of fees, school board powers and requirements, French-language governance and special education.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN

ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to table the answer to question 21 and the interim answer to question 31 standing in Orders and Notices [see appendix for final sitting day of December].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Eakins: The enactment of this legislation will implement a system of direct election to the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Starting with the next municipal elections in 1988, Metropolitan councillors will be able to devote their full attention to Metro issues. The Metropolitan council will be composed of 28 directly elected Metropolitan councillors, plus the mayors of the six area municipalities. Each area municipality will have a specific number of Metropolitan councillors based on the principle of representation by population.

As the members know, an alternative method of balancing representation and population would be to increase the size of the Metropolitan council. This was requested by the council in 1985. However, not one of the six area municipalities, in responding to the recent task force report, has supported that alternative.

This bill provides for the creation of 28 Metropolitan wards. One Metropolitan councillor will be directly elected by the electors of each Metropolitan ward at the regular municipal elections. The term of office will continue to be three years. Only the six area mayors will serve on Metropolitan council and an area council at the same time.

To be eligible for election to the Metropolitan council, a candidate will need to be eligible to be elected to the council of the area municipality in which the Metropolitan ward lies. In other words, to be eligible for election in a Metropolitan ward in Etobicoke, for instance, a candidate must be eligible to run for the Etobicoke city council.

The bill sets out procedures for the establishment of Metropolitan and local wards in time for the 1988 municipal elections. The area municipalities will be required to submit to me within 60 days of the enactment of the legislation a proposal regarding their local ward boundaries and council size. Criteria for these ward boundaries are set out in the bill. Flexibility will be allowed in order to establish Metro and local wards in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

During the startup period, Metropolitan and local ward boundaries will be established by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Those orders will take effect at the 1988 municipal elections. After December 1, 1988, ward changes will become the responsibility of the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB will be able to alter the ward boundaries in accordance with the legislation, but will be required to ensure that local wards are within Metropolitan wards. Any order of the board will take effect at the next regular election.

This legislation provides for the abolition of the remaining boards of control in those Metro cities that still have them. The arguments for and against retaining these boards have been carefully considered. In my opinion, the existence of boards of control complicates the present system and detracts from the accountability of the councils. I believe that the abolition of boards of control will leave area councils with a simpler and more accountable system. The area councils will, I should add, be permitted to establish standing and other committees and assign them such duties as they wish.

The legislation will make a number of other changes relating to the implementation of direct election. For example, the Metropolitan chairman will be elected from among the 28 directly elected Metropolitan councillors. Each member of Metro council, including the mayors, will be able to vote for the position of chairman. However, the mayors will not be eligible to be elected as chairman.

1520

I want to emphasize that for the first time the chairman will be required to win and retain a seat on the Metropolitan council in order to run for the position of chairman. The chairman will be directly accountable to voters as well as to Metro council. Each member of the Metropolitan council will have one vote on all council matters. In order to fully represent his or her constituency, the chairman will also be a full voting member of the council. The chairman will no longer have a tie-breaking vote as is now the case.

Implementation of direct election also requires certain amendments to the provision dealing with the vacancies and resignations. Because Metropolitan councillors will serve exclusively at the Metro level, the Metropolitan council will be authorized to declare the seat of a directly elected Metropolitan councillor vacant. The Metropolitan council will also be permitted to fill vacancies according to the provisions of the Municipal Act, that is, either by election or by appointment.

At present, the appropriate area council fills a vacancy on the Metropolitan council by appointing one of its own councillors. The area council then has the option to fill that vacancy on its own council by either election or appointment. Under the new arrangements, the Metropolitan corporation will be required to pay to the area municipality all area expenses of an election held to fill a vacancy on the Metropolitan council.

An important aspect of this legislation is that all provisions dealing with the Metropolitan executive committee are being deleted. Instead, Metro council will be permitted to establish an executive committee and to grant it such duties as the council wishes. The Metropolitan chairman will chair and be a member of any executive committee that is established.

A number of other housekeeping measures have been made necessary by the implementation of direct election. For example, the first meeting of the Metropolitan council will have to be held within 14 days of the beginning of the term of office. The clerks of the area municipalities will be required to forward to the Metropolitan clerk certificates of qualification for those councillors elected in Metropolitan wards within that municipality.

In the provisions dealing with the election of the chairman, the word “person” will be replaced with “Metropolitan councillor.”

I believe that these amendments constitute an important milestone in the evolution of the system of municipal government in Metropolitan Toronto. I might add that five municipalities of the six are supportive Metro council has discussed this on a number of occasions and has been unable to make a firm decision. I believe that now is the time to act.

The Deputy Chairman: Do members wish to comment or have questions on the minister’s statement?

Mr. Cousens: Why did the minister or the ministry not bring forward this bill earlier than it did, realizing that there was a task force that had done extensive studies on this matter and brought out that excellent report in November 1986? It took until a year later to bring the bill forward. In fact, there is the former minister who asked for that task force in a very wise and deliberate way.

Notwithstanding that, it has taken this long for this bill to come forward. Then our new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), as quoted in the Toronto Sun -- and who knows how well the honourable minister is quoted at times? -- intends to rush through this legislation at Queen’s Park in such a way that maybe not all factors are being considered.

How much time was spent on the preparation of this report? An extensive period of time. There were previous reports of this nature as well that were done that would have given the ministry a good insight into the complications of the bill that is before this house right now. Maybe what the Legislature is facing up to is that the ministry wants to ram it through and not have the opportunity for feedback, discussion, amendments and possible refinement of this bill in such a way that it is going to begin to address the needs of Metropolitan Toronto.

I would be interested in knowing why it took so long. I am sure the previous minister was very busy and I would not want to see the present minister blame the previous minister. I would think that would be in very bad taste because he is such a qualified and capable man, but if he wants, we would be willing to at least put that on the table.

Mr. Mahoney: I wonder if the minister might comment on the possibility of expanding this concept. Regional government is what we are really talking about, of course, and while there are many concerns related to the Metropolitan Toronto situation, I think it would also move into other areas of representation, the election of regional chairmen. I know that at the regional chairmen committees that meet regularly, for example, there has been a lot of discussion about how regional chairmen are elected and whether or not they are truly representative of a democratic system under the current system.

I quite support the minister’s efforts in revamping the Metropolitan Toronto council, it being, I guess, the fourth-largest government in the country and a very major tax collector and spender in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, where many of the regional population work and are supportive of Metro government and require its services from time to time.

I think there is a further outreach that should be looked at by the minister and his staff as to whether or not they should be expanded, taking into account regional governments; election, direct election, election of chairmen and all of the different aspects; abolition of particular boards of control that might exist in certain regions and not exist in others, and certain inequities that exist throughout the province. Regional government is not that old and perhaps should be reviewed by the minister and his staff throughout the entire province.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to respond briefly to some of the comments that have been made. The critic for the third party made some suggestion about the possibility that this has been rushed through. I want to tell him that this has been given a great deal of consideration, not only by myself in the last few months but certainly also by my predecessor and colleague the former minister.

There has been extensive consultation on this. Each municipality was represented on the task force. My colleague the former minister met with the mayors and the chairman four times in 1986 to discuss the work of the task force. The previous minister, l know, wrote twice to each mayor and the chairman requesting responses to the task force.

Most municipalities and the taxpayers’ groups that wrote in directly support the reform of Metro council, and the Metro reform has been the subject of several other studies, back to the Robarts report and even beyond. In all the discussions that have been held, there has been minimal opposition and indeed there is support from all municipalities. While perhaps one or two of the mayors have had some questions to ask, basically, other than the one municipality, the support has been very strong indeed.

We have had a great deal of support for bringing in this reform and I am asking the support of the honourable members of this House that we might now get on with it so that we will be in time for the 1988 elections.

The member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) suggested the expansion of this direct election to the regional areas, the regional municipalities. I might say that there already are three regional reviews under way and --

The Deputy Speaker: The minister’s time is up; I am sorry. Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Breaugh: We support the bill. We have for some time called for something as dramatic as having the most powerful political person in Metropolitan Toronto elected to something somewhere, and that is the centrepiece of this proposal. It provides for other forms of direct election as well and I think it addresses itself to a problem that has been bothering people for some period of time.

I am interested that there are those who say something is being rammed through here or some process is being rushed upon us. Surely this is a 20-year rush that is going on here. This has been talked about in as many forums as I can think of. It has been the subject of staff discussions for a couple of decades. It has certainly been the subject of discussion among politicians, among people who are interested in regional government. There have been several attempts to put together legislation here at Queen’s Park. There have been a little more active attempts to do that and a little more pointed attempts to do that in the last couple of years.

1530

You could fault this government for many things, but it certainly did not rush into this one. The previous government sat on this idea for about two decades and talked about it, referred it and had staff reports and public hearings on it. Council meetings were held on it, committees of council held discussions about it, municipal organizations discussed it; just about everybody you can think of in Metro Toronto who had any connection with Metropolitan government has had an opportunity over the last two decades to voice an opinion on the matter. So I would accuse them of many things, but rushing is not one of them.

It is true that we have come down to the idea that is being specifically proposed in this bill after all of this deliberation, and we have not had lengthy debates. Perhaps that is because there are some of us who think that 20 years of debate is enough.

There are some problems that are related to this bill and I think we have to address those concerns today, although we will not get solutions to them. There are many who are saying specifically that one of the things that is difficult to do is to say whether you are for or against this idea until you know what the boundaries are. I accept that as a valid argument that there will be a provision in the bill -- there is -- to make a mandatory, nonappealable set of boundaries apply to the first election, and that after that, the normal process of Ontario Municipal Board appeals and so on will kick into place.

It then becomes critical that those boundaries be absolutely above suspicion by anyone. I know many local politicians in Toronto who are very much proponents of the direct-election concept and are rather fearful now that they may have been sold a bill of goods because they are not being kept as posted as they might be as to precisely what the boundaries will be.

Those of us who have been in politics for a while know that it is conceivable -- it has been done in the history of Canadian politics -- that boundaries are drawn in certain ways to help along the interests of certain individuals. I want to put forward this afternoon the caution that it is incumbent upon the ministry to make sure that the first set of boundaries that is drawn is absolutely without question, so that no one can point a finger and say there was gerrymandering going on.

Because the ministry has made this and has given itself the arbitrariness of, “we’re going to set them for the first go-round and then after that the normal appeal processes can kick in,” it will be critical that the first suggestions for boundaries be ones that cannot be accused by anyone of being wrong. That is going to be a difficult task. There will be some who will say, no matter what the ministry does, that the process was wrong, that the end result was wrong and that, in effect, the ministry has put some problems on people for at least this set of elections, perhaps ones that will last for the foreseeable future, because it is not going to be easy to draw those boundaries in the first instance, and once they are in place, tradition will take hold and it will be difficult to change those. The ministry seems prepared to take on that task. I am just trying to caution the ministry that it will not be an easy thing to do, and it is going to be a critical factor in what is being suggested here.

The first major problem that I see the ministry having, if it gets this bill this afternoon -- and it appears that it will -- will be to ensure that it does not get accused later on of gerrymandering, of setting up a set of boundaries that is to anyone’s particular personal political point of view, which would be quite wrong, or something that is really going to be very difficult to accommodate.

It is conceivable -- at least, I can conceive it -- that the ministry would draw up a set of boundaries in Metropolitan Toronto that is totally unrealistic and that in fact puts people who are running for public office, for this Metro council position, in the kind of electoral competitiveness that none of us has. We know that when the provincial commission sets its boundaries, we always have these arguments that the commission does it by an arbitrary number system, as it did the last time around. Sometimes that produces results which do not make sense to anybody, where there are divisions within communities that are not sensible, where there is no cohesion to the boundary that is struck, and that causes problems.

So it is not an easy task that is before the ministry and I am simply trying to caution it that because it has removed the appeal process, it is going to have to be squeaky clean, and it had better be.

We have private assurances that will be the case. There are people with great integrity drawing this up. In addition to having great integrity, I hope they have great wisdom. It is a task that I, personally, would not choose to take on.

The second thing is not as directly related to this bill, but you cannot escape it. The Globe and Mail, for one, is full of stories these days of folks who are getting ready for this set of elections that will be covered by this bill -- folks who have had some very successful fund raising events -- and yet we have no election expenses act. We have a statement by the minister and, as I read it, that statement means the government intends to bring forward legislation which will not apply to this first election; it will kick in for the second one, but may not be ready in time for the first one.

I hear people interjecting here -- and I just want to put on the record this afternoon, I have been around here just long enough to know that you believe the legislation when somebody prints it up and puts it on Orders and Notices. You do not believe it until you see that. People who have been here for a while have heard ministers get up and make statements about what they intend to do for a long time and it just never happens. People voice private opinions about what should be done and it just never happens.

So in this place, the thing you have to do is believe it when they print it up and table a bill and not before. That is perhaps a little bit cynical but it is also reality. There are all kinds of good intentions float in and out of this chamber, but you do not believe anybody’s good intentions until they have the audacity to introduce legislation, print the bill, put it on Orders and Notices. Even then, the closets are full of bills that were introduced and never were processed here.

The second major problem that I want to put on the record this afternoon is: What are we going to do about all of those people who have stated publicly their intentions to run in the next municipal election that is covered by this bill and who, according to the Globe and Mail anyway, have got substantial war chests put together, the election expenses statement notwithstanding? They have $200,000 or $300,000 already in the kitty, I am told, according to the Globe reports.

Will the $200,000 already collected be used to run an election or will it buy somebody a new Cadillac? As long as it is a GM product, I do not care, but, you see, there are no rules at work now. We have only the statement that there will be some rules, but they are not in place yet. I want to caution again that the whole process that everybody has worked so long for may be thwarted by someone who has already got a whole bunch of money put together and will be able to run a more expensive political campaign than most members in here run.

There are some members in this chamber who go out and spend a passel of money at election time, even though there is an Election Finances Act. I spent $50 on advertising. There are some in the chamber who spent a bit more than $50 for advertising, but there is a practical political problem that is emerging here.

The legislation which governs the election itself is here in front of us this afternoon. The legislation which would, theoretically, govern election expenses in a Metro election is not here. There may be some who will stand up next fall and wave the minister’s statement and say, “Here is our intention.” But the truth is, unless you can get up and wave the bill that has been passed in the chamber, it is no good. It does not count and people know that. They know there is a way to make laws and there is a way to make statements, and there is a difference between the two. So I, personally, would have been happier had we seen the two proposals brought forward at the same time.

The Election Finances Act, to be fair to the minister, is one which will apply province-wide and as one who has been a proponent of that concept for some time and argued it out with people from all across Ontario, I am the first to admit that is a very difficult piece of legislation to put together simply because elections at the municipal level are very different animals in rural Ontario than they are in downtown Toronto and it is not an easy task to put that together.

What I am arguing is that it would have helped us immensely this afternoon if we had been able to say, “Here are the two companion bills. One covers direct election in Metro,” which will introduce for the first time a major electoral change in Metropolitan Toronto and will create an electoral process which is large, complicated and, I believe, sophisticated, and that also means expensive, in terms of actually operating an election. Whether anybody likes that or not, that is a fact of life.

1540

It would have been nice to say, “Here is the one bill which creates direct election in Toronto and here is the other bill, the companion piece of legislation, which governs election expenses.” It would have been really nifty if we were able to do that at a time when one of our major newspapers was not running a scandal a day on how municipal politicians dig up their funding. How much it was and who bought $100-a-plate tickets and the allegations about the development industry and the development plans for downtown Toronto kind of go hand in hand here.

It is an awkward moment we are in, in part. If we had known and if the House had any control over the timetable of all this -- we did not know when the Globe and Mail would write this story, obviously, but we did know when the government would introduce Bill 29 and the government apparently has at least thought enough about the process that it can make a statement about what it intends to do on election expenses. I am simply making the argument that it could have made a stronger case if we had two companion bills going through the legislative process at the same time.

The final thing I want to comment briefly on this afternoon is that it is my understanding, and I was not a big player in negotiating this deal, that the bill is going out to committee. I have no real objection to that. I am at a bit of a loss to explain why it is going out to committee. If the purpose of the exercise is to process the legislation, that makes some sense to me. If the process is to have one more brief set of public hearings, I certainly have no objection to that. But I cannot imagine that this bill is one which now would be subjected to a further, lengthy series of public hearings.

It seems to me we have gone through an immense public hearing process around this concept. It is my understanding that the general intention is that there will be a brief set of public hearings -- in other words, an occasion for those who still want to make the argument to come before a legislative committee and do it -- and the intention is that we will probably also process the clause-by-clause debate of the bill and then try to report it back by the supposedly brief one-week February sitting.

I think I will have a small heart tremor if I ever get to see a promised one-week sitting actually be a one-week sitting. It has never happened. Every time I have been here as a member and they call us back just for one little piece of business, it always seems to turn into several little pieces of business that spill over into the next week. Of course, since you came down from the north on Monday, you might just as well stay until Thursday and then on Thursday afternoon someone else has a piece of legislation that has to happen too. It is theoretically possible that might happen.

We support the concept that is here. This is not quite what I personally would have designed, I suppose. It is not perhaps the way to apply things across Ontario in terms of other forms of regional government. I would say that the inevitable is happening. Once you allow democracy to creep into the system somewhere in Ontario, it has an ugly habit of rearing its head everywhere and that is pretty much what is happening here.

Members may recall that in Hamilton-Wentworth people were petitioning on the streets to have some democratic measure used to choose the chairman for their region and last year we did that. This year, although it is not quite what I had in mind, we have a proposal at least to have the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto elected to something, and I accept that. I think we will now see a trend established. After all, if they can do it in Hamilton and do it in most of the other regional governments around Ontario, I think we will simply see refinements in the process.

Let me state one final concern that I have. After having put all of this on the record, we support the bill and the principles in the bill. I have some small measure of concern and it goes back to the other two things I mentioned. Municipal politics is the last place where an individual can begin to do community service in an elected position without going through all the rigmarole of great election processes, where it is possible in many parts of Ontario for good people to be elected to public office on a county council or as reeve in a small town, without really doing anything in the way of an election.

In other words, they are elected to their local council simply because everybody in that town knows them. They do not have to go out and put up big billboards which tell everybody how wonderful they are. They do not have to print a whole lot of brochures which tell outrageous stories about them, and they do not have to rent a dog for the family photo or any of that. They walk up and down the street and people say, “I hear you are running again. I like you and I am going to vote for you,” or they say, “You are not a very nice person because you said you were going to fix the pothole on my street last year and you never did.”

There is a kind of aura around municipal politics that is a little different from almost all other levels. It is very much on-the-street politics. It is very much a personal and very much more of a direct kind of political process. What we are doing here moves us just a little bit away from that, probably not because of anything that is in this bill directly but because, when they draw up the boundaries, these are going to be big wards to try to represent because of the nature of the Metropolitan area that is served by this bill. It is going to be a fairly large, sophisticated group of folks who run for public office, and it is going to take a fair amount of political apparatus to get them elected too.

So there is in the back of my mind just a little bit of doubt. I do not want to see local elections in many of our municipalities, as they now are, made extinct. I like the idea that in many parts of Ontario there is no real election campaign for municipal office, not in the traditional sense that signs go up and bands play and lies are told. I like the idea that someplace in Ontario there is a more personal process at work. I would like to see us retain that if we can.

I do not pretend for a moment that you can do that kind of politics on a large scale in Metropolitan Toronto, but I think you can somewhat. I know that many people who now sit on Metro council are very proud of the fact they spend a lot of time working with community organizations. One of the appealing parts of municipal politics is that you get to stay in your own neighbourhood and work out the problems of that neighbourhood and you are not really pestered with all the intricacies of free trade, the Meech Lake accord or anything like that. You are worried about whether somebody gets his street plowed in the wintertime or repaired in the summertime or where you put in a ball diamond, and a lot of what you do is simply to meet with community groups, hear their concerns, work with them and take them through the municipal process.

That is fading out of the scene, and it is particularly upsetting, I guess, for many of us to read the kind of stories that have been in the Globe and Mail in the last few days that indicate that in Toronto politics people are gathering up war chests of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 to get ready for the elections that will be covered under Bill 29 and that many of the people who make such contributions are people who have a direct vested interest in what that council does, that the developers who are attending all of these little cocktail parties in rather lavish downtown Toronto hotels will hand somebody a cheque for $3,000 or $4,000.

That sounds like a lot of money to me. Then they will turn around and, because of how that council votes on a zoning matter, they will make $2 million and $3 million on one voting decision. Some will make much more than that. I find that a little disconcerting. Somehow we have not served the process well by allowing it to get to this state.

I view this bill as being an attempt to move that system around just a little bit. For example, it has always seemed to me that at the heart of this bill is the idea of direct election of the Metro chairman by somebody. It always seemed to me to be a cruel hoax that one of the most powerful politicians in Ontario, the chairman of Metro council, was not elected by anybody. It struck me that there is something basically wrong with that and there has been for a long time.

In many of our regions, the people who take over a region when it is established initially are always appointed. Not that that is an intrinsically evil thing. But the person who begins, for example, in the role of regional chairman will set the mould on how that region is going to be structured and function for the foreseeable future. If the chairman of the region decided, for example, “We are not having any staff here. We will just hire consultants from Toronto, so we do not need a planning department or we do not need to build roads,” then it would become very difficult for the next chairman to try to get that kind of infrastructure set up. So I believe we have accomplished some things here.

I have tried to put on the record that this is not quite as clean a shot as I would like. It would be cleaner and healthier if we could say this afternoon, “Here is the bill that sets up direct election, here is the bill that calls for election expenses in that direct election and here are the boundaries that are going to be proposed.”

1550

I am just a touch apprehensive. I know the minister well and he is not one of the ministers who would try to do something devious. I do not suspect for a moment that there is any dirty work afoot here. I am just pointing out that we support the bill this afternoon in principle and we always have, which is not to say that this is going to have smooth sailing.

I can envisage, for example, that if the boundaries come out in a way that everybody thinks is really wrong, this thing is badly off the tracks. If there is not the companion election expenses bill brought forward and processed in time for this election, this one is off the tracks and badly.

I think we are headed in the right general direction. I am just a touch anxious that we could have done a better job on this. It is conceivable to me that we could have put together the boundaries, we could have put together the election expenses package and we could have proceeded knowing that we had all bases covered. As we process this bill this afternoon, we do not, so we are a little bit vulnerable.

I sense that because of the long discussions that have gone into the preparation of this bill, some of that anxiety, some of the fine edge of it, is taken off people who now sit on Metro council, for example. Not all of them are happy, but I do not know of too many laws that go through here that please absolutely everybody.

It seems to me there is very much a consensus on this bill among those who are directly affected by it. It seems to me that it is in line with all the work that was done by Robarts, the clerk’s committee and everybody else who has looked at this issue over the years. It seems to me this is a fairly natural evolutionary process that has taken place and the bill before us is absolutely supportive.

Mr. Cousens: This is an important bill for Metropolitan Toronto. When something as important as this comes to the House, it is important that there be full and proper debate on it. It is unfortunate, however, that it is such a late time in the whole process of following through on such important legislation.

When we consider that the whole process started well over a year ago and the report that was tabled by the Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto, which analysed the options for government of Metro Toronto, has been in the hands of the minister for over a year -- I realize it is a new minister, but it has been in the hands of the ministry for at least that length of time. The concerns that were expressed in this excellent document at least gave options to the ministry on how to address Metropolitan Toronto’s boundaries and its future government.

We are talking about an important government in Canada. I may be out a little bit but I think it is the seventh-largest government in this country. That means the decisions they make, the money they spend, the influence they have, all have a tremendous impact on the whole of the community and certainly the community in which this House resides, what we know as Metro Toronto.

First of all, I support the intentions behind the bill. Our party recognizes that important decisions have to be made as they impact on Metropolitan Toronto and, therefore, the principle of the bill is sound. It is time to review the boundaries, it is time to review the electoral process, it is time to look at the election of a chairman, and it may be time to do some more things that are not covered by this bill.

The member for Mississauga West stood up and asked a question about facing up to the needs of the larger territory around what is Metropolitan Toronto. As one who lives on the north side of Metropolitan Toronto, I think Steeles Avenue is sometimes more than just a street; it is sometimes a big wall. Someone needs to have the perspective of those regional municipalities that neighbour on Metropolitan Toronto and consider the transportation questions, the environment questions, the garbage questions.

There are many things that overlap our communities with Metropolitan Toronto which are not addressed in this bill and, therefore, are not really part of our discussion today.

I am concerned, none the less, that this bill is hastily put together. Being hastily --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Say that again.

Mr. Cousens: Does the minister have any amendments to bring forward? Is he saying it is perfectly clean right now? The minister interrupted me. I said it is hastily put together. Is he saying there are no amendments he is going to make because it is just perfectly clean?

Mr. Faubert: It is perfect.

Mr. Cousens: He knows it is not.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: You make the recommendations.

Mr. Cousens: I am going to be making more than a few recommendations, in the spirit of the democracy which I am elected to represent. I did not have the discourtesy to start interrupting the minister during his speech, and if he wants to start getting nasty right now, then I am quite capable of doing that. I happen to have in mind the interests of the people of Toronto and the people of North York and the people who make up all of Metropolitan Toronto. I assumed that was his interest as well, so he does not need to start interrupting my remarks, because I was careful not to interrupt his.

Mr. Ballinger: Sure looks good on television.

The Deputy Speaker: The member will ignore the interjections and will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Cousens: There are a number of concerns that are part of this bill that is before us. I would like to review a number of them that have been in my mind.

I think the goals of the bill are honourable. I think indeed we have to make Metro government more accountable to the voters. I see an important need to improve the framework for local governments’ decision-making powers. I also believe -- which I think is part of the minister’s intent but I am not sure -- that the current system is seen to he confusing to voters and he is trying through this bill to simplify that process. One of the amendments I would hope to bring forward in committee will address this, because I think it is going to be more confusing than ever to the voters in Metropolitan Toronto.

I think the minister has tried to address how local councillors and Metro councillors will have a division of duties. May I suggest that is going to be a concern as well? What is going to happen with the division of power between one of the local councils and Metro council? Although one of the goals of the bill is to allow a better division of power, I think that division of power can have an undermining effect on the decisions that are made within the Metro government that affect what is going on within local governments.

I believe the intention of this bill is an honourable one in that at election time it will allow there to be a greater focus on the issues that are of local interest and those of Metro interest. Possibly there is an ongoing educational need that this province has to fill to educate and help the people in an area as great as Metropolitan Toronto to understand all the different levels of government that they have. That educational process falls not only on ourselves but also on the local and Metro councillors within Metropolitan Toronto.

I also agree that there has to be some accountability of the chairman of Metro council, who should become accountable to the electorate. I believe there is a flaw in this bill in the way it has been suggested the chairman be elected, and I will get to that one in greater detail.

I also believe that the minister is recognizing that the shift in population from some municipalities allows one to be more represented than another. This bill is an attempt to try to give equal representation.

It is a large, large city and it has large implications to all the people as we look at the number of elected politicians. Right now there are 98 elected politicians on the Metro scene. I support abolishing the boards of control. I think we see that as a function that can be done away with at this point. By reducing the boards of control we will be down to 86 elected politicians in Metro, but adding 28 new Metro councillors will increase them to about 110 if local councils do not shrink.

It is estimated that there will be a large impact on salaries and staff which will cost Metro taxpayers maybe up to as much as $2 million per year. There are a number of implications to this bill.

1600

Let me just touch on the four areas that are of special interest to myself, our party and to what I think will at least touch on the concerns of people within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The first has to do with ward boundaries. This was reviewed for a moment in his brief remarks by the member for Oshawa, who talked about the boundaries that will be decided for the new Metro councillors. I am concerned about that.

The whole business of boundaries for councillors has quite a few implications. First of all, the report that was put in last year in November, Analysis and Options for the Government of Metropolitan Toronto, had at least three recommendations. It said one could go for 22, 28 or 43 as the number of councillors. The government has come up with the recommendation of 34 altogether, whereas at present there are 39, plus the chairman.

I am questioning what is going to happen from a number of different angles. First, let us consider what happens to someone such as my mother, who happens to live in downtown Metropolitan Toronto, in the old city of Toronto.

An hon. member: In my ward.

Mr. Cousens: In the member’s ward. There were not too many signs of the member’s party on her lawn.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: The member will never know. He is doing well so far. She is going to end up having a great deal of confusion as to who her local councillor is, if there are different boundaries for her Metro councillor and for her ward councillor in Toronto. What is going to happen across this great city when people start to say, “Who is representing me?”

Right now it is difficult enough for them to know who is their representative in city government in any of the different cities; but when one has a different set of boundaries that overlap a different territory, it could mean that the people of Toronto will become very confused as to who their representatives are.

At this point I draw a parallel to the proposals to change Metropolitan Toronto. It looks so easy that it reminds me of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and metric. He said: “There is no problem. You count to 10, then you count to 100 and then a multiple of 10. You are not going to have any trouble at all understanding it.” How many years later is it and we are still having trouble with metric -- at least I am. The pages are the only ones in this building who understand metric, but they do not understand the old system. It is going to happen with the boundaries in Metropolitan Toronto. There is going to be that confusion that is going to cause people to say, “Who is representing me?”

I can go on at length on that one, but those are things I would like to see reviewed when this goes to committee -- the boundaries and representation
-- so that people have someone they know is actually their representative on either council.

I am concerned with the way the boundaries are going to be struck for implementation in 1988. We have less than 12 months for the new boundaries to be in place for the next municipal election. In that time frame the people in this Metropolitan area will be voting and, by then, the new boundaries will have been decided upon by order in council, but to what degree has anyone looked at those boundaries?

When one thinks of the boundaries that we have recently gone through and analysed how members of the Legislature would be elected, we have changed the number of seats from 125 to 130. This Legislature, in its wisdom, and in following precedents, established a committee of three whose responsibility it would be to have a review of the election boundaries of this province. When it came back, there was a review of those. It then went back to them and then came back to the Legislature, where it had a chance to consider the effect of those boundaries. Everything was taken into consideration. Not everything was changed that the people wanted to have changed but at least there was that process. The process allowed everybody to have some input into it.

What is going to happen now? I believe the boundaries are going to be so changed around, for instance, in the city of Toronto. I have a number of quotes from different people in Toronto who are concerned about the change in those boundaries. It is not 100 per cent, but then the minister was careful to say that in his view he was not trying to pretend that 100 per cent of the people liked the recommendations.

Mr. Haggerty: Just put one on the record.

Mr. Cousens: No, I will put them on the record. I will come back to it. I have sufficient time. The honourable member is asking me for a quote from someone who is concerned about the boundaries. If it is not on this page, I will have to come back to it, but I have them and they are here. I just cannot find it right now, but I will get it; I will come back to that. The honourable member is asking me for a specific quote from someone in Metropolitan Toronto, and I will have that. It just depends how long I take to come through with it, but I will be glad to share it with him.

The fact of the matter, and the point I was trying to make, is that the people in Toronto are not universally, unanimously supportive of the recommendations that are being brought in this. Further to that, I am convinced that the people in Metropolitan Toronto do not understand the implications this bill is going to have on them. I think many of them are going to find it very, very confusing.

What I was talking about had to do with the selection of the ward boundaries and with there being a system that will allow total equity to take place in the carving up of these different urban municipalities so that there cannot be any chance that there is even the perception of gerrymandering. Not that there ever would be from the honourable people who would be involved in the process, but that is why this Legislature sets up an Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission that goes through that process and carefully develops a plan and a strategy for those new tidings. There is not one -- well, probably there are a few -- but most of the members of this 130-member Legislature have been seriously affected by the changes that were proposed and implemented in the last election of September 10. I believe that having a hastily developed piece of legislation, which is now being debated, brought into this House a year after the commission report was released does not give sufficient time for the review of the boundaries in Metropolitan Toronto.

I am not sure what the solution is. I do not want to pretend to know all the answers, but assuming that this government is going to push through this legislation, maybe one of the answers is that in the first term of office those Metro councillors will have the same wards that overlap those of existing council members. That might be a way of doing it, and then they would have three years to work out how the boundaries are going to be, so there is not going to be a lot of confusion next year when they are saying, “Gosh, your line starts on Yonge Street” or “Your line starts on Avenue Road.”

That could be a way in which it is done in presenting a reasonable approach. I hope when this is in committee, if there are enough others who think about that and feel it is a genuine concern, that could be an approach for this government to adopt. There have been cases in the past where the government has adopted reasonable amendments from the third party. I am concerned that the whole business of boundaries between a Metro councillor and a local councillor is going to be confusing and should be looked at in greater detail.

My next concern has to do with the timing of this bill. The bill is before us, and we all know the minister has said in the newspapers and other places that he wants to see it passed very, very quickly. I can tell by his attitude in the House that he is rather dismayed that this bill is now going to be going to committee for further consideration.

I believe the timing for the implementation of this bill is less than adequate. It is really somewhat surprising. The Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto, which was established by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), in February 1986, reported in November 1986, 10 months later, and provided a number of options at that time. It took the government a year after that to introduce the legislation, and now this government expects Metropolitan Toronto to implement the new system in less than a year, in time for the 1988 municipal elections.

I believe implementation could be deferred until the 1991 municipal elections, allowing for a smoother transition and perhaps more time to debate the bill either in standing committee or another public forum. The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) who was asking has left now, but one of the Metro councillors, Derwyn Shea, suggested that the current ward boundaries be kept as is for the 1988 election, but to carry on with the idea of election of the chairman from Metro council. There are a number of people who have spoken out on this.

1610

The timing of this has meant we are trying to rush it through. It is going to all go into place. I draw the parallel to metric, which sounded so easy but was not when we started trying to handle it. I think those who believe that it is may be in the minority. There are many others who may have some trouble with the speed at which we are doing this.

The third point I would like to raise has to do with the direct election of Metro councillors. There are a number of points I would like to raise there. I would like to go back for a moment and consider the responsibilities of Metro council. That council currently has 39 members plus a chairman. It sets policy directions for and provides guidance to the corporation staff in matters for which Metro is responsible. The functions for which Metro council is solely responsible are police, social services, public transportation, solid waste disposal and capital borrowing.

There are also a number of areas in which both Metro council and the area councils share responsibility. It is my understanding that some of these areas of shared responsibility consist of emergency planning, libraries, parks, roads and traffic, sewage and sewage treatment, water, industrial promotion, licensing and land use planning. In other words, a Metro councillor and an area councillor have a common interest in quite a large number of areas.

The point I am leading up to is whether we are wise to have a total separation between the area councils and the Metro council.

Mr. Neumann: We don’t.

Mr. Cousens: Well, there are the mayors, but I am asking for more than that. My, this is a very --

Mr. Neumann: You said “total.”

Mr. Cousens: I asked the question and I am going to answer it. I am glad that the member knows what he is doing. It is really quite pleasing and surprising that the honourable member -- I have just got to put him in his place -- the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) --

Mr. Faubert: You can try.

Mr. Cousens: We can try. He is honourable but he is also independent.

What happens then when we have --

Hon. Mr. Curling: Honourable people are not independent.

Mr. Cousens: In this group, it is good to have someone who thinks for himself. He does not have somebody whispering to him the way the member who just spoke does most of the time.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I ask the honourable member to ignore the comments of other honourable members and continue with his --

Mr. Breaugh: Very good advice, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Cousens: I am awfully sorry, but you have to control them, Madam Speaker, and I know it is very difficult.

What happens then if the Metro councillor does not have that close contact that has previously existed by working with, living with and sitting in the same meetings as local area councillors?

In all those areas that I have just delineated where there is a common overlapping interest between the Metro councillor and the area councillor, we do not want to just rely on sending letters back and forth, which is the way that government often deals with other levels of government. It becomes a bureaucratic nightmare, as we have kingdoms built up and established where we are going to have one bureaucrat saying, “This is the way we will do it,” and the next level is going to say no. It would be so much easier if there was dialogue at the common, local political level.

As a question, is that going to disappear? I wonder whether it is going to undermine an excellent working relationship that has been built upon and worked with ever since the introduction of Metro council. By separating Metro council from the local area councils, the question stands of whether we are doing the right thing to serve the local population by saying, “Here is a whole new tier of government.”

The only interface between the local government and Metro is going to be the mayor. Why can there not be an ongoing, continuing liaison at the grass-roots level? I believe there is a great deal of benefit to be had if the Metro councillors could also have an attachment to the lower-tier municipal council level. I believe what could happen is that if bad relationships develop between these different levels of government, some future Minister of Municipal Affairs might try to eliminate one or other of the councils, might say, “We are going to pass on all the responsibilities that previously existed with local councils to the Metro and urban council.” That has been rumoured by some people, that that might be a long-term plan. It is certainly not in the present bill but it could well be something that is on the agenda of the minister in the future.

I believe that the advantage of having Metro councillors, local councillors and area councillors working together is that it allows for a better working relationship over the short and the long term. It was certainly one of the options presented in the task force and it has been one of the options that has been ruled out by the minister without any comment, without any discussion, without any debate at all. The fact that it was defined as an option in the initial report leads me to believe that the minister said, “We won’t do it.” I know that from where I see it, there are some significant advantages if the two levels of government have a foot in the door of either side.

An amendment to the bill could establish two elected officials for each ward with joint seats for one councillor. This would ensure a more stable system and eliminate the possibility of antagonism and competition between the upper-tier council and the lower-tier.

The direct election of Metro councillors is going to have, I think, long-term implications in the way this is going to affect the thinking of people because you are now going to have almost super councillors who are Metro councillors, maybe with a different vision from the local ward councillors. That is the concern we are trying to table.

I could go on longer but I would like to touch on my fourth point which has to do with the accountability of the chairman. When the minister said, “We’re going to have an elected chairman,” there was almost a big cheer that went up that said, “Hey, that’s good.” But let us come and ask, what kind of an election is it going to be? You have the chairman being elected by his own little area. The mayor of each of the cities is elected from within that city. Should there not also be an election of the Metro councillor from at large, representing all of the people of Metropolitan Toronto? Is that not one of the recommendations that appeared in the task force report?

The chairman’s accountability is being limited to only his or her constituents. The question that has not been answered in the House, and cannot be answered fully until we get into committee, is to what degree is that chairman as accountable through that electoral process as by being elected at large? I believe the chairman has such an important role that are we not also trying to crowd the chairman by also giving him the extra responsibilities? Maybe this needs to be considered a little further. When this is considered in debate in committee, we can consider some amendments that could well clean up this bill that otherwise will not be perfect.

I believe the point of an elected chairman for all of Metropolitan Toronto is worthy of consideration and it has not been considered in this bill. I believe that the wards, as they are being defined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, will not be totally satisfactory and that we might be well advised to look at having the same boundaries for the first three years and then, at the end of that three-year period, there can be some consideration on how those boundaries were brought in.

I am concerned that there is so much that could be affected by this when you consider that the new Metro council’s members will be excluded from the lower tier of government. Are we suddenly changing the whole makeup of what representatives of Metropolitan, urban Toronto and the different municipalities have been doing in the past? I am concerned about that. Because of those concerns it may be wise, in spite of the fact that we agree with the principle of the bill, to postpone it for three years until such time as these things can be cleaned up.

1620

It may well be possible, and I have every reason to believe, that when it goes to committee, a number of reasonable amendments can be made. There would be an opportunity for public input from Metro council and from those local councils that have concerns. Their concerns could be tabled. They could be considered. They may well have some other recommendations that could be considered as part of this bill. Then it would be possible, if the House is coming back in mid-February, to have it cleaned up at that time.

I do not want to see a bill brought in now and passed quickly without having these concerns addressed and approached in a balanced way for proper amendments that could be fully considered by members of this Legislature. It is a process that is important. It affects over two million people in Ontario. For us to think that we are just going to ram it through today and then it is all over and done with without further consideration would be a terrible mistake. I think there is enough time for us to do what we are suggesting: that this House, in committee, will be able to consider the amendments we have to present. There may well be other concerns that are tabled by other concerned people about this legislation.

We will be supporting the bill. We support the intentions behind the bill. I just regret that it has not been done more quickly. I regret that it does not allow for a continuing holding together of all of Metro Toronto. I think there are real problems with that. By having this at least go to -- what committee is it going to?

Mr. Harris: General government.

Mr. Cousens: By having it go to the general government committee, we will have the opportunity to make it a better bill.

In the meantime, we hope to see Toronto continue to be treated in the way it should. The Metropolitan and urban Toronto area really has an awful lot going for it. What we have to do is start putting the vision out there for transportation, for renewal, for housing in this area and for the whole problem with the environment and garbage. These things have not begun to be considered. This government has not begun to open up solutions to some of these things when it has the chance to do it now.

The Acting Speaker: Do any honourable members wish to comment in the remarks just made by the member for Markham?

Mr. Mahoney: I just got a little confused at the end there. I heard the member for Markham say that he is upset that it has not been done more quickly. Just prior to that, I heard him suggest that it might be appropriate to defer it for three years or possibly defer it to February and send it through committee. I am hearing both sides of the story, that the honourable member is supporting the bill but he is upset that it has not been done quicker, that it has been around too long. I found the statements made by the honourable member to be a little disconcerting.

On the issue of direct election of a chairman, though, I wonder if the honourable member might comment and clarify his position. It seems to me that a regional government, whether it be Metropolitan Toronto or other regional government -- I correct the honourable member as well when he stated that many of the other regions have already gone to this. That is simply not the case. They may be reviewing it and it is being reviewed. The member said earlier in his speech that other regions than Hamilton had gone to it. I am not aware of that but clearly --

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: That was not my intention.

The Acting Speaker: You will have a chance to respond.

Mr. Mahoney: Fine; I accept that. The member will have an opportunity to clarify that.

Clearly, when people are elected at a local level, what happens is that they are afraid to make a decision at the upper tier of government. They simply refer it back to the local area municipality and no decisions get made. As a member who has served in a regional municipality for nine years, I experienced that tremendous frustration. At least this new bill with the leadership being shown by the minister would eliminate that from happening and would make the people who are elected directly to Metro council and the new directly elected or elected member who would become the chairman would make them directly accountable to their own constituency.

The Acting Speaker: Would any other member like to comment on the remarks of the member for Markham?

Mr. Breaugh: I have a couple of areas he could perhaps clarify. I am somewhat amused that those on the Liberal side of the House do not understand that he is for it and against it at the same time. It is a classic and traditional Liberal position and of all the people here, they should understand that.

Mr. Neumann: It is true Progressive Conservative.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, it is true. I want to ask that he provide as soon as possible to us -- I appreciate his concerns about all the rush of two decades, of something actually getting done here. Would he give us copies of the amendments he intends to propose so that we might consider what they are? Surely later this afternoon or whenever this is dealt with, we would not want to have those amendments rushed on us at the last moment.

Mr. Cousens: Dealing with the member for Oshawa first: yes, we have the amendments ready and we will have them circulated.

To the member for Mississauga West, the problem we have is that the ministry had a copy of the recommendation from the task force since November and did not table this legislation until a year later. There was ample time to bring Bill 29 into the House last spring. We could have had debate, discussion and amendments and changes made to it so that there would have been more time. There is the time that was lost. Maybe they did not have time to read it, they were so busy getting ready for the election. To me, that is the problem that existed. The report was tabled in November. They could have done something with it -- “they” being the then Minister of Municipal Affairs -- a long time before bringing it into this House a year later. That is my concern. A year was lost by the government.

The second point is on the election of the chairmen. It has to do with the fact that I was not saying there was another form of electing chairmen in Metropolitan Toronto. The member may have misunderstood me. I certainly did not intend to convey the intent that he took out of my statements about the election of chairmen of regional municipalities, but I do believe there is reason to consider a way of electing the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto council. That could well be an election at large and that is one of the amendments we have to table.

The Acting Speaker: Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Neumann: It is a pleasure to rise in support of Bill 29, sponsored by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government on the reform of government in Metropolitan Toronto.

I believe this piece of legislation will provide improved accountability and clarity of responsibility for all elected officials in Metropolitan Toronto, at both the upper tier and the lower tier. I must say that it has been a very refreshing experience for me, coming straight out of the municipal scene to the Legislature here at Queen’s Park, to have the privilege of serving as parliamentary assistant to this minister. He has opened up the consultation process within the ministry and carried on the tradition of the previous minister in that regard with the new government that took office. He has involved me in the consultation process, and I can say to the House that there has been extensive dialogue among the provincial level of government, the various municipalities affected and the Metropolitan level of government. I believe the time for consultation is now over and the time for action as a Legislature is upon us.

Metropolitan Toronto government has been a model in North America for many years. I do not think what we are talking about here are amendments to change a bad system of government to a good one. I believe what we are talking about here are amendments to improve what already is a good system of government in Metropolitan Toronto.

Time has passed, with changes in the situation which existed in Toronto and which spawned the initial development of Metropolitan government. At that time, we had a city surrounded by a number of boroughs, suburban areas. We now see a similar situation, with Metropolitan Toronto itself being the central urban area. The suburban areas have moved considerably beyond the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

We have an important situation today where it is necessary for the elected officials who serve on the upper-tier government, Metropolitan council, to be able to focus on these broader Metro-wide issues, not only their relationship with the lower tier but also their relationship with surrounding municipalities, in grappling with the important urban issues of our time, such as transportation and housing.

1630

I believe the time has come to act and I am proud to be part of this action. I believe it is an important reform, an important step forward for this government to take, and I am very pleased that both opposition parties are supporting this direction in principle.

I believe, however, that it is not necessary for this bill to go to a committee. I feel that consultation has taken place, and extensive consultation. You will never get 100 per cent agreement. Five of the six municipalities support the direction being taken, and I believe the timing is important for another reason. The bill calls for a 60-day period of work at the local government level, the area councils, to develop the ward boundaries following the royal assent to the bill.

By delaying the approval today and sending it to committee, we are delaying the start of that process, that 60-day period which triggers in once the bill is given royal assent. If we do not give this bill royal assent until some time in February, we are delaying it another 60 days after that. We are getting then into the spring period. This is election year, after all, and the preparations have to be made for planning for the enumeration process and, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, the other reforms with respect to municipal elections that will be coming along very shortly.

I believe that perhaps by referring it to committee we are indirectly catering to the wishes of the previous speaker, the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), who says he does not want this implemented until 1991. We could be risking the implementation of it this year by delaying that process until later in February, so I would urge the members to consider giving this approval today so that the reform can go forward.

I would like to comment on some of the other references that were made on the division of responsibility between the Metro council and the area councils. Initially it was mentioned that there is total separation. It has been clarified that there is not total separation -- the mayors of the area municipalities provide ongoing liaison -- but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, “Let’s have representation at the Metro area, focusing on important Metro-wide issues, some of which perhaps have not received the attention they should have,” and then say to those same elected officials, “You also must take all the responsibility that occurs on a local area council.”

I say to the previous speaker that you do not need legislated liaison in order for liaison to occur. I can speak from experience. As mayor of the city of Brantford, I initiated a trilevel process to have close liaison with the provincial member of the Legislature and the federal member of Parliament. We accomplished a great many things together, and you do not need legislated liaison for dialogue to occur.

The mayors are there as the legislated liaison, but the ward representatives on Metro council can liaise with the local councillors any time they wish. The local councillors can liaise with the Metro councillors any time they wish. They can have regular meetings, three or four times a month if they want to -- that frequently, although I would expect it would not be that frequently.

We are not saying that ongoing dialogues should not occur between the local council and the Metro council. What we are saying is that direct election will not only provide a focus on reform of the structure of Metro government but will also free up the time of those Metro councillors so that they can deal with the important urban planning issues facing this most important metropolitan area, the most important metropolitan area in our province. It is a model in North America and I want to see it improved.

Another aspect of reform I would like to touch on is the abolition of the boards of control. I believe there is general consensus to do that, and what we are saying in this piece of legislation is that the six area councils and, indeed, the Metro council will have the freedom to structure their executive committees, or any standing committees they wish, as they see fit. This is in keeping with the philosophy of the ministry to give municipalities the responsibility to handle their own affairs.

Why should the Legislature determine the structure of a committee of a local council? Indeed, it basically brings Metropolitan government here in line with what exists in many councils throughout the province where the committee structure is determined by the members elected to that council. They can structure an executive committee as they see fit; they can determine how it reports to the council, they can determine its terms of reference and how it is to be chosen, and they can change that when they feel the need to change it. Why should they have to come back to us here at the provincial level for that kind of direction? We are giving the area councils and the Metro council the freedom and the authority to make their own decisions in that regard.

With regard to the boundaries, I believe the process is fair. I am told that the work has progressed well along. In most, if not all, of the six area municipalities, work on the boundaries has developed quite far along. Consultation is occurring with the school boards. I believe if we were to give third reading, and royal assent shortly to follow, they could live well within the 60 days that are specified in the legislation.

We would have those boundaries drawn up and implemented so that people will know. It is not only important for the councils to know. Mention was made of possible aspirants to government. I think the sooner the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto know, the better. The sooner the people who are considering running for these important offices know, the better it will be.

I do not think it is in anyone’s interest to delay the process. Within the legislation there are 60 more days when they can study the boundaries before they have to report back to the minister. This is ample time. Once those boundaries are announced, the people will know for sure and they can make their decisions whether they are going to run for re-election on their local council or whether they are going to run for election on the Metro council. People who are not incumbents and who are considering running for municipal office will know the rules of the game.

In conclusion, I believe this bill has been well thought out. There has been thorough and ample consultation with all parties concerned. It is a major step forward in terms of reform of municipal government in this province for the very important area of Metropolitan Toronto. I urge all members of this Legislature to support Bill 29 and move forward with the times.

Mr. Cousens: Our amendments and our concerns are not from any desire or attempt to put an undue delay on the implementation of this bill, although I believe there are a number of problems in the bill which can be addressed. Maybe a large number of them can be resolved when this is discussed in committee. If that is the case, then certainly, as reasonable people, our concerns might well be addressed through the amendments that are tabled at that time.

I believe we just have to do some more thinking about it. The boundaries are an example. The member says there are 60 days to solve the boundaries, but one of the options is not to go with the existing boundaries, and that is not even a consideration. How can the member say it is all perfect? It is not perfect.

I would like the honourable member, who has an important job within the government, to respond, if he can, to this point that is made in the report by the committee that looked at Metropolitan Toronto. The quote is:

“The present system provides for linkage of the two councils. Members of the Metropolitan council are informed on Metro issues and aware of the overall view. They can impart such knowledge to their colleagues on the area councils. Conversely, they can bring the local perspective to Metropolitan council. This link has the potential for reducing conflict between the Metro and area councils and for fostering formal and informal consultation on Metro issues between the two levels.”

1640

This is one of the points that was made in the report last year. The minister is just saying there are other ways of handling it. Give me some evidence that substantiates the point the member has just made, because certainly in the recommendations the task force said, “There is a real plus to having the two councils working closely together that way.” The minister is saying it is not important. Can he give us some evidence for that?

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Brantford wish to reply?

Mr. Neumann: Yes, I do wish to reply briefly. I believe that ample liaison exists within the proposed bill, or will exist once the bill is passed into law and the system is put into place, by having the heads of council from the area municipalities serve on the Metropolitan government.

The other thing we have to remember is that these heads of council are prohibited from running for the Metro chairmanship. Their main function will be to provide this liaison with the local council, and who better to provide it than the person who is the head of council: liaison between the local council and the Metropolitan government? That is the minimum legislative liaison. In addition to that, informal liaison can occur.

Now, we could obviously go for the other option, and it was discussed and reviewed and there was extensive consultation on this: Should we have people serving on the local council and on the upper-tier government, the Metro council, at the same time? It was decided that, while there could be some advantage in having additional liaison, you would be considerably watering down the main intent of the legislation, which is to have a Metropolitan council made up of directly elected councillors who can focus on the broad Metro-wide issues.

That does not prevent them from developing informal liaison with their counterparts on the area councils. We are not talking about negatives and negatives. There are positives to what you suggest, but the positive on the other side, in terms of the present issues facing Metropolitan government here in the Toronto area, of having councillors freed up to focus in on those area-wide concerns, far outweighs the others.

Mrs. Grier: I am one of those who, as a member of a Metropolitan Toronto area council for many years -- in fact, I think the first one to participate in this debate today from Metro --welcome the advent of Bill 29 and think its advent is long overdue. It was in June 1977 that former Premier John Robarts reported on the appropriate structure for Metropolitan Toronto. I regret that it has taken us 10 years to get to the point of having legislation introduced that would do some of the restructuring that was recommended in that very thoughtful and very comprehensive royal commission report.

I do have a regret that, because the legislation has been so long delayed, we are forced to this rather truncated process of determining the ward boundaries. I share some of the concerns that have been expressed here today that passage of the bill, presumably in February, is not going to give a very long time for those ward boundaries to be in place and for the councils and the aspirants to office really to know what the ward boundaries are going to be.

I would certainly, in that context, encourage the minister to do his best to make sure that all the area municipalities submit to his ministry their proposals for ward boundaries well in advance of the 60-day period. I know the clerks of the municipalities are already working on the ward boundaries, but again from past and bitter experience, I think it is essential that there be some kind of independent arbitration as to what the most appropriate ward boundaries will be.

It took the Ontario Municipal Board, some years ago, to persuade the city of Toronto to move from long strip wards running from the lake all the way up to the northern boundary of the city and to move from that kind of ward to a block ward which in fact was more homogeneous in its population and in the people it represented. It took the Ontario Municipal Board, in Etobicoke some years ago, to prevent the division of long-standing neighbourhoods and communities by a council that wished to align its ward boundaries for reasons other than representation by population and looked more to who was likely to represent the ward.

I would caution the minister that he has taken to himself by this legislation a job that might well have defied Solomon: deciding what the most appropriate ward boundaries are going to be. It is not going to be as easy as the drafters of the legislation might have thought. I think it is very important that that decision be made as quickly as possible after the legislation is proclaimed.

Having said that, as has been said by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I support the legislation.

I recall that the thrust of Mr. Robarts’s report was twofold when it came to Metro. He tried to devise a system that would provide for strong local government, but he also gave recognition to the fact that Metro was unique, and so he tried to design a system that was suited to the particular needs of Metropolitan Toronto. When I hear other members draw inference from this legislation to the effect that the same kind of system should apply to other regional governments, I have some qualms because I am not sure that is entirely appropriate and I would hate to see what might in fact work for Metropolitan Toronto, as a result of 10, 15 or 20 years of discussion, be imposed on some other regional municipality where it might be much less appropriate.

When the Robarts commission recommendations surfaced in 1977, I was one who was an alderman at the area level. I had very grave reservations about the effects of direct election to Metropolitan council. I thought it would make Metropolitan council far too powerful, that it would erode the powers of the area municipalities and that it would remove the most important level of government, the local government, from the electors and from the communities.

I believed that the greater accessibility and the greater accountability of local government would result in better government. I regret that I now have to come some distance away from that position and to recognize that the area councils have not, in the 10 years they have had to prove themselves since the Robarts report came down, lived up to the responsibilities and the authority that were vested in them.

When you look at some of the narrow focus that area municipalities have taken, I think you have to admit that they have shirked many of the tough or unpopular decisions which would be in the interest of the broader community of Metropolitan Toronto. So I have moved from the position of opposing direct election to Metro to the position of thinking that, in the context of the 1980s or the 1990s, in the context of the problems that face Metropolitan Toronto today, the kind of system that is being envisaged in Bill 29 is the way we have to go.

As an example of some of the issues that I think can only be addressed at the Metro level and that will be addressed as a result of this legislation, one only has to look at housing and the inequities in the distribution of assisted housing across Metropolitan Toronto. You have to look in my own riding at the whole question of waterfront development, where we have seen what happened in Harbourfront and the kinds of decisions on densities, on architectural design and on housing that have not proven to do what I think everybody in Metropolitan Toronto wanted to do, which is to open up the waterfront, make the waterfront a people place and not put a ceramic curtain between downtown Toronto and the waterfront.

In Etobicoke, in an area known as the motel strip, which I suspect members of this House will hear more about in future, we see a local council that is about to repeat the mistakes that the city of Toronto council made. Next January, they are about to allow a very high density, high-rise kind of development on that last strip of underdeveloped waterfront. I hope that if we perhaps have direct election to Metro council before those planning decisions come into play, we can have some discussion about the broader Metropolitan interests as to what our waterfront ought to be and what we could make our waterfront be.

In my own area of criticism, the environment, I think the lack of direct election to Metro has inhibited the provision of a proper recycling program at the Metro level. We have each area municipality worrying about what it is going to cost them. We have lack of co-ordination between Metro and the area municipalities. We have nobody really seized with the issue and getting on to put in place proper management of our waste in Metropolitan Toronto, to the detriment of all of us.

1650

I do, however, want to say to the minister that I hope he will not regard the passage of this legislation as the final act in improving the system of government in Metropolitan Toronto. He cannot afford to rest on his laurels, because this government still has to come to grips with the whole question of assessment in Metropolitan Toronto, an issue that has been raised in this House in the past and that I do not think direct election is going to solve.

If the government is really serious about coming to grips with the long-delayed problems of Metropolitan Toronto government, then it is going to have to come to grips with the whole question of how we pay for education, not only in Metro but also all across the province, and it is going to have to realize that until it lifts some of the burden of education spending from the property tax, it is not going to be able to reform the assessment base in Metropolitan Toronto. In my opinion, the two go hand in hand, and I do not want to let this opportunity pass without mentioning it.

I mentioned waterfront development as to what has happened at Harbourfront. I think the whole question of development and the linkages between developers and municipal politicians has been well covered by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), but I too want to say that I regret that we do not have as a companion piece to this bill a piece of legislation that would put limits on the election expenses of Metropolitan politicians.

I think that, in the whole question of election expenses, perhaps the minister would want to consider that sentiment of Premier Robarts in his report that Metro was unique. It may well be very difficult to devise a system of election expenses that is applicable all across the province. I think it is essential and long overdue that we have that kind of legislation for Metropolitan Toronto, but it may well be necessary, at least as a first step, to devise a piece of legislation that relates to Metro and that can be put in place in time to take effect before the 1988 election.

I think that is essential and I hope the minister in his statement to the House that he intends to introduce that kind of legislation will live up to that commitment and will produce the legislation, at least for Metro, as soon as he possibly can.

I share too some of the concerns that have been raised about the liaison between the area councils and Metropolitan Toronto. I am not sure that just having the mayor on the area municipal council is going to be sufficient and is not, in fact, going to result in a real division or breakdown of communication between the two levels of government. But because it is, to my mind, so important that we get on with reforming Metropolitan Toronto, I certainly do not intend to oppose the legislation because of that fact.

I merely flag it because I think another of the recommendations of the Robarts commission is worth remembering, that is, recommendation 4.5, which said, “A general review of the Metropolitan system should be instituted in not less than five nor more than 10 years.” Little did the commissioner realize that it would be 10 years before we would have any reform of the Metro system. I urge the minister not to let another 10 years go by before we evaluate the effects of the reforms that are part of Bill 29 and before we take a serious look at what improvements could be made to this particular legislation. But I congratulate the minister on having at least introduced this bill and I look forward to its implementation.

Mr. Kanter: I rise in support of Bill 29. I believe it does bring accountability and clarity to Metro government.

I was privileged to serve as a member of Metro council for close to two years before being elected to this House, and also as a member of city council for a little longer, and I have had experience with some of the issues that have been described by the minister, his parliamentary assistant and, indeed, some of the members opposite with respect to some of the reasons for this legislation.

I believe that all members of the House would agree that Metro’s role has changed quite fundamentally in the 30 or so years that it has been in operation. When it was founded in 1954, it basically provided hard services. The size of sewer pipes was the kind of subject matter of Metro debates, and Metro did provide those hard services in a fairly efficient manner.

As we come along to the current time, 1987, Metro is now in reality the fourth-largest government in Canada, certainly in terms of budget and the number of people it serves. It has a very substantial impact on people’s lives on a daily basis in terms of economic development, housing, social services -- there is an area that has really grown in the past 30 or 35 years -- the increase in concern about day care, about assisted housing, which one of the members opposite referred to, and the need for more help to enable seniors to live in their own homes.

Police services are under increasing scrutiny and, indeed, this government will be proceeding on a bill to increase the size of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission to help with the workload and demonstrate greater sensitivity to the population of Metro Toronto. The Toronto Transit Commission and transportation of all kinds might also he mentioned.

I think this bill is important, primarily to give the public an opportunity to learn where candidates stand on Metro issues. In a nutshell, l think that is what is significant about this bill, because the public has not had that opportunity in the past.

Second, l think it is important because it gives councillors, those who choose to run for the Metro level of government, a chance to devote their full time and attention to that level of issues.

If I might dwell just for a moment on my personal experience at city hall, I think it indicates why we need this kind of legislation. I watched people run in 1980 and 1982 on purely local issues, people who would end up on Metro council. I watched them run and express a concern about local stop signs, and we know they are important to our constituents. I watched them run on trying to bring about natural ice skating rinks, a perennial issue in the city of Toronto, with very little attention to the broader Metro issues that members have mentioned. I watched them spend most of their time on these local issues; I would estimate somewhere between two thirds to three quarters of their time on very local issues.

I took the challenge of trying to bring about a partial change -- I will call it a partial change -- in the city of Toronto system with the assistance of members across a broad political spectrum. I know that Alderman Michael Gee was involved, Alderman Richard Gilbert was involved and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) was certainly involved once it got to this House. We brought about a change. It was the kind of change that the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has been referring to. It was a dual representation system where members would be directly elected to Metro council but would also serve on their area council.

Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Speaker, pardon me; you can see I have spent some time at the municipal level -- I think that was an improvement but I do not think it totally solved the problem. There was still a certain lack of clarity whether I, as a Metro member, continued to be responsible for local issues or not. I think it was an improvement but I do not think it went far enough.

I am glad that this bill addresses the question in a clear manner. People will run for Metro council; they will be elected to Metro council; they will serve on Metro council; they will solve problems of their constituents at the Metro level. I think that this will eventually bring about a substantial improvement in the types of concerns that are raised at the Metro level and, hopefully, the quality of decisions that are made.

In one sense, we are very privileged in the Metro area. We have a booming economy and a low rate of unemployment but we do face many serious problems in the areas of housing, the environment and transportation.

I am also glad that this bill addresses the question of the election of the Metro chairman and that the question of the drawing of local wards is left in the hands of the local council. Certainly the recommendations are left in the hands of local council. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) must ultimately make some final decisions, but I think the input should come from local councils. That is precisely as it should be.

1700

In contrast to the comments of the member for Markham -- I am sorry he is not here and I realize he has other business before this House, but I think that his comments that this legislation is somehow being rushed through are really far, far afield.

I would suggest that this bill is probably one of the most carefully researched pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced affecting municipal government. It goes back, I think, even before the Robarts report in 1977; its roots go back farther than that. There were proposals by the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître), in 1986.

There was a Metro committee set up to study government reform and accountability in 1987. I had the privilege to serve on that committee. We met on many occasions between January and March 1987. Bill 29 adopts the recommendations of the Metro committee almost in their entirety. To suggest that this legislation is being rushed through or to suggest that this legislation does not correspond to the wishes of Metro council is just not correct.

There has been some discussion back and forth about whether Metro is or is not a unique form of government. Certainly, the concentration of population in this area is unique. Yet the problems that we face as a regional government or a Metro government with an upper tier and a lower tier are not necessarily entirely unique.

I had the privilege of participating in an informal seminar on regional government. One of the participants came from the Niagara region. His name was Ron Book. I believe his politics at the provincial or federal level were of the Conservative persuasion, but he was certainly very persuasive in communicating his views about the separate approach -- the separate-but-equal approach, if you will -- whereby members of regional councils served only on those regional councils and communicated and appeared as deputants and did all the things that we as politicians are able to do, but where they were clearly members of regional council and accountable for regional council decisions. I think that system is working well in at least one other regional government.

I very much appreciate the position of members of the official opposition on this bill, their general support for the bill, with some concerns expressed about ward boundaries, about campaign funding legislation -- and I am pleased to note that our government is introducing legislation in that regard -- and their consideration of the pros and cons of dual versus Metro-only representation.

But I find the position of the third party unclear, inconsistent and verging on the irresponsible with respect to this legislation. They suggest that this legislation has been rushed through and that is simply not correct. They suggest that this legislation should have been brought before this House sooner, but that would have denied an opportunity for full consultation before Metro council, an opportunity that was given to Metro council and that was taken by Metro council. They suggest that there should be dual representation, and certainly that is not a totally impossible position, but I am not sure whether the member opposite who spoke for the third party has looked at the pros and cons of the city of Toronto’s experiment in this regard.

Perhaps a clue to the true position of the third party can be found in the comment of the member for Markham that implementation should be deferred until 1991. I think that is their real motivation, that nothing should happen very soon and, indeed, before we have further discussions we can have other reasons for putting things back and putting it on hold, saying situations have changed and other considerations will arise and basically nothing very much should be done.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Let’s fix it. Let’s do nothing.

Mr. Kanter: That is perhaps the position of the third party.

Mr. Neumann: Regressive Conservatives.

Mr. Kanter: Regressive Conservatives. Yes, I like that line. I think we will take that line.

Since the members of the third party lack Metro representation, perhaps they are relying a little too much on certain Metro mayors to make their policy for them. Perhaps they are relying on certain Metro mayors who might lose a little power and influence because they will no longer be able to pick and choose who sits on Metro council, no longer be able to sort of control votes on Metro council like puppets on a string. Perhaps the members of the third party have been listening a little too much to one Metro mayor and not listening quite enough to members of the public.

I conclude my remarks by reiterating my support for Bill 29. I think the bill has widespread support among members of the public, as well as most Metro politicians. I urge its passage in time for the 1988 municipal election.

Mr. Harris: I have just one comment. In his remarks, the member expressed regret that the member for Markham was not here. The member for Markham wanted very badly to be here and to stay through the entire debate. However, the committee on estimates for the Ministry of Housing was sitting there doing nothing, waiting for the critic to arrive.

I just want it on the record that the member for Markham is, at this very moment as we speak, involved in the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, which I think most Metro people would appreciate is a far larger problem than the one we are discussing today. I know, though, that the member will want anxiously to get a copy of Instant Hansard about seven o’clock tonight to familiarize himself with the remarks of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter).

Mr. Kanter: I want to reply very briefly that I believe in my remarks I did acknowledge the fact that the member for Markham was involved in other House business. I clearly indicated that in my remarks.

Furthermore, I think an improved Metro council such as the one that will be established by the acceptance of Bill 29 can perhaps hope to make a dent in the housing problem, which we all admit is a very great one. I think the municipality does have a role to play, along with the province, and I am hopeful that a better structured Metro council will result in better policy decisions in the housing area.

Ms. Bryden: Unlike many of the previous speakers here, I cannot claim municipal experience at the Metro level but I have been a ratepayer in Metropolitan Toronto for over 30 years. I have been aware that Metropolitan government has gone through a number of changes, but none of the changes have really produced the kind of accountability that ratepayers such as myself have been looking for.

We certainly did not get it during the many years of Conservative government, and after two and a half years of Liberal government, we are still taking only a very small step towards a Metropolitan government that will be truly accountable to the residents.

For one thing, we have only one third of the jigsaw puzzle. As other speakers have pointed out, we do not have the election expenses legislation which the minister has indicated he is bringing in. It is very difficult to discuss this bill without seeing that legislation.

You simply cannot get accountability if you do not have control over the amounts that can be spent and the size of election contributions. You cannot have accountability if you do not have disclosure laws which will enable the voters to know where the money comes from. You cannot have control of election expenses without an election expenses commission to administer it, and I think it is a copout to say that the provincial one could do it. At least the rules have to be set in the legislation for the municipal field.

1710

I agree with my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) that we may need election expenses control more urgently in Metropolitan Toronto than in the rest of the province, so we should not have to wait for province-wide election expenses legislation but should get Metropolitan legislation in effect as soon as possible.

Certainly, the recent disclosures in the newspaper of the amount of contributions that appear to be coming in before such legislation appears indicate that there is a definite need for putting ceilings on the size of contributions and on the amount that can be spent and for letting us have full disclosure. We all know that without such disclosure there is always the fear that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

We also need election expenses legislation which would provide some sort of rebate to people who make smaller contributions, in order to broaden the base for supporting candidates and to make it possible for smaller contributors to help with elections without heavy financial penalties where there is no rebate. We have it at the federal and provincial level and I do not see why we cannot have it at the municipal level.

Mr. Neumann: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member is speaking at some length on a matter which will be introduced in a subsequent bill, according to a statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). While it indirectly pertains to this bill, I feel it is more appropriately in order as part of the debate on the Election Finances Reform Act.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I am sure that the member will be putting her comments directly on the point.

Mr. Breaugh: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker: I heard the member speak for two or three minutes. I do not consider that to be at great length. It seems to me she is allowed the opportunity to speak in here. The member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) spoke and no one bothered to interject or to interrupt him. I think he should extend the same courtesy to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden).

The Acting Speaker: The matter is before the House. Would the member for Beaches-Woodbine continue.

Ms. Bryden: I am simply pointing out one of the deficiencies of the legislation before us. Since it does not cover this area, as I said, we have only one third of the jigsaw puzzle.

The other area that is not covered, of course, is the school board trustee elections and the election of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, which will inevitably be affected by the reorganization of the wards in Metropolitan Toronto. I think we should have that other piece of legislation from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) before we complete consideration of this bill after second reading.

In fact, I hope those companion pieces of legislation will be brought before the Legislature prior to the conclusion of any committee hearings that are held, which would then be dealing with the bill clause by clause. We are not in a position to deal with this legislation until we do have the other pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.

I am glad that there are some changes coming to the Metropolitan government legislation which will at least eliminate having the chairman not elected by anyone and which will bring more focus on Metropolitan issues. Certainly, I support the bill as far as it goes, but I would have liked to have seen it go considerably further in broadening our opportunities to participate in Metropolitan government.

We have to face up to the fact that Metropolitan issues are very widespread and very important financially. They include roads, disposal of waste, the Toronto Transit Commission, the police and welfare -- some of the biggest spending areas -- and yet most of them are not conducted in the kind of open government milieu we have become accustomed to at city hall on local issues in Toronto.

For instance, the present Metropolitan council seldom advertises that items are available for deputation. It seldom holds public meetings, particularly in the evening, to which it invites residents to come and discuss an issue. It seldom publishes agendas or advertises meetings when particular subjects come up that might interest the public. In fact, it is still in the Dark Ages as far as the concept of open government is concerned. I think the new council, if it is constituted under this act in a different way, should be aware that it has a big responsibility of accountability to the voters.

They should also, of course, have greater control over any crown corporations that they operate and control over the police in the sense of bringing their budgets before the commission and giving opportunities for public comment on how the budget is allocated. They should also review the overall transportation needs of the whole area in an open, public way so that there can be co-ordination of the plans and public input into the kind of transportation plans we adopt.

I do not think the initiative of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to appoint a federal representative and himself and a municipal representative or two is sufficient to co-ordinate our transportation needs. I think we have to have some planning of them in a co-ordinated way by bodies that are accountable to the public and not by one representative from each of the three governments working behind closed doors. That is what I am looking forward to in the new legislation and that is one of the things we really hope to see come out of it.

We should have public hearings on it. I am disappointed that the time is so short for adequate public hearings and for looking at different models or at how the ward boundaries are drawn. I agree with the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore that the method of drawing the ward boundaries is extremely suspect. You leave it to the municipalities and apparently in some municipalities, such as Toronto, they delegate it to a committee of elected representatives. It is true that their recommendations have to come back to council, but it seems to me that particular group of people has a conflict of interest when sitting down to carve up boundaries.

I know it is too late to do it now, but I think whenever we change boundaries in an area such as the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the process should be very similar to what is carried out at the federal and provincial levels. There is not time now for this, but I hope it will never happen again that the boundaries are left to the local municipalities to carve up as they please, without any sort of appeal from those decisions, without any sort of public input into those decisions or any sort of review of those decisions except by the local council.

I have not heard that the local councils are planning to have public meetings on the ward boundaries they propose, probably because the time frame is going to be so short. But certainly there should be some review by an independent body of the ward boundaries that are established, and there should be, before it comes back to the province for approval, some guidelines developed perhaps by the committee that sits to discuss the bill, which would be principles that must be followed in the establishing of ward boundaries. This would give the province some rules by which to decide whether to approve or not the boundaries that are submitted. Those guidelines should, of course, include a reasonable representation by population, a consideration of divisions into neighbourhoods, locations of schools, main arteries, adjacent boundaries federally and provincially and things of that sort, and the composition of each ward should reflect a variety of income levels.

I hope the ministry will put its mind to developing some sort of guidelines to help it when they come back to this Legislature for approval. I am not sure whether they actually come to the Legislature for approval. I hope they do.

Those are some of the weaknesses in this legislation. That is why we are disappointed in it in many ways, but we do welcome it as a step towards a long-overdue reorganization of our municipal government structure.

1720

Mr. Neumann: Two of the speakers at least from the official opposition have commented on the election reform provisions and the need for reform in election expenses and have given the impression that the government is not acting in this area. Last week the minister made a statement indicating exactly what the position of the government is, indicating that legislation will shortly be tabled in the House.

There is no reason for this bill to wait until that bill is introduced or for the other one to be dependent on this one, because we are talking in one case about the reform of the Metropolitan Toronto government and in the other one we are talking about a province-wide reform. This government is committed to doing both, so I do not want the viewers, the listeners or the members of the House to think that action is not being taken. It is going to include disclosure, campaign limitations. It was announced by the minister following extensive consultation with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and all kinds of municipalities in the different regions of the province, so I do not think that can be used as a reason to delay this bill. Both are necessary and both are being acted on.

Mr. Breaugh: I thought the member for Beaches-Woodbine covered the waterfront pretty well, but I do hear a little chirping to my extreme left over here about whether we do things by way of ministerial statements here, and it should be made clear that we do not. Good intentions are one thing; good legislation is quite another. We are simply expressing that there is a relationship between this bill and another piece of legislation that may or may not be forthcoming. We will remove our cynicism from the process when we see the bill itself.

As far as surprises go, we have had 20 years to see this bill. If there are those who feel somehow that the process is being rushed a little bit now, it is very simply that this idea has been around for a long, long time. The government certainly did not have to wait until now to produce the legislation and then all of a sudden demand that it be processed right away -- although that is, I would note in passing, a favourite stunt of all governments around here. They seem to not draft legislation for 20 years, and then all of a sudden, when they finally get their act together, they have got to have the bill in the next two days. It always seems to come about three or four days before adjournment.

I would imagine in the next few days we will be serenaded yet again by ministers of the crown who sat on their duffs for the past 18 months and, in the last week before adjournment, all of a sudden have found the will to make a bill possible, actually found the energy to print the thing, stick it in front of our noses and then say to us: “I’m sorry. We just don’t have time to debate this bill. You’ll just have to vote for it.” I think that is an old song we could put to rest around here.

Mr. Pope: I was not going to speak on this matter, but having heard the comments of the member for Brantford, I am forced to rise to the defence of the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

I have to say to the minister and his parliamentary assistant, who have the nerve to suggest to us that in fact work is not now being done on implementation of this bill and that somehow putting this bill out to committee is going to delay work that should be done to implement the bill, we know full well -- and I think the minister and his parliamentary assistant should admit it right now so we will destroy that myth -- that work is now going on at the bureaucratic level to do precisely that, to implement this bill. Let us not kid the troops or the people of the province.

The minister has set in motion, at the administrative level in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, steps to implement this legislation that he now wants the House to consider. That, of itself, says something about the regard the minister has for this Legislative Assembly.

Second, I think it also indicates that the parliamentary assistant, when he has more experience, will understand that implementation, from time to time, takes place concurrent with consideration of legislation.

Therefore, I think the concerns of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has been waiting to see the other piece of legislation -- and the government is playing coy with basic municipal reform in this province -- are well founded. We are looking forward to the day when the minister makes a clean breast of it and tells the people of this province exactly what his timetable is. Maybe when he does, there would not be these kinds of debates between his parliamentary assistant and the critics of the ministry and the government.

Mr. Harris: I too want to come to the defence of the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the remarks she made. It is the silliness and the stupid remarks that came from the parliamentary assistant, the member for Brantford, that really prompt me to rise and defend the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Maybe it has not been said here -- there is one thing before I get into a one-minute detail of what really bothers me -- but we are dealing here with a party that, if you read back in history, is totally opposed to regional government to begin with.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Not us, Mike.

Mr. Harris: Check the record when regional government was brought in. Here we are. The government has its great opportunity. I am shocked it is not doing away with regional government. That is its position. That has been its position for as long as I can recall, for as long as regional government has been around. The government wonders why he do not trust it. Its position has been totally opposed to the whole concept; now we get this bill.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine is quite correct. There was an understanding that these two bills would come forward together. That understanding, in fact, became more than an understanding of House leaders. It became a commitment that we would co-operate and accommodate and allow the government to deal with this legislation in a much quicker way than either of the two opposition parties wanted to deal with it. Now we have still not seen the companion piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired. The member for Beaches-Woodbine, to defend herself.

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate the support from the members of the third party. It is always nice when we can agree. Certainly on this particular issue we are in strong agreement that the government has delayed much too long and I think the member for Brantford should be pushing his government to adopt implementation of its legislation and its promises much quicker.

1730

This whole session has been a disappointment as to how much has been implemented, weighing the promises. This is just another example of something rushed through at the last minute with only half the legislation there. That is what the member for Brantford should be working on in his caucus, to see that this reputation is changed and that we get action from the Liberal Party.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Faubert: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Breaugh: Why are you delaying the passage of this? This is a filibuster.

Mr. Faubert: Why am I delaying? I am just delighted with the new accord that I see across the way. I want to see the draft of this new accord.

I am delighted to rise in support of the bill to allow the resolution of the differing status of members and how they are elected to the Metropolitan Toronto council.

As a member of Metropolitan council for seven years, I recognize the need for changes, and I am delighted that this will result in a direct focus on Metro issues by Metro members. It will allow them to have the time to do so. More importantly, it will allow the electorate to focus on Metropolitan issues. That is the essence of the bill that is before us.

I am very happy, and I would like to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs for acting so quickly in this matter. Contrary to what has been said, this has been brought forward and I cannot see how, within the legislative process, it could have been brought forward much faster in this session of the Legislature.

Mr. Breaugh: Where were you during the last session?

Mr. Faubert: I was not here in the last session. I am delighted to see what has happened in the session which I am a part of.

It is really strange to be accused of somehow rushing this through at the last minute. It has been alluded to in the speeches that more than 20 years of reform have been sought in Metropolitan Toronto. Over the past 10 years, since the Robarts commission, we have not seen -- no, we did, pardon me; we saw one single reform recommended by Robarts implemented by the past Tory government, and that was the three-year term of the council, but there has been nothing else within the 134 recommendations that came out of that commission.

It is really interesting too that somehow someone is implying that there has not been ample consultation. I have sat on four separate committees that relate to this. I have been involved with it at Metropolitan council. We have seen all the recommendations that have come forward, and this act incorporates all those recommendations.

Out of interest, and with some nostalgia, I really rise to comment on the abolition of boards of control. I was a controller for seven years. I always knew that somehow they were an endangered species, but I also have some understanding as to why it was recommended that we abolish them. Their time has really come within the government structure of Metropolitan Toronto and, indeed, probably across Ontario.

The only argument that could be made in support of boards of control in the Metropolitan structure itself is the fact that, ex officio, a controller became a member of the Metropolitan council. But in all the elections that I have been involved with -- and this was mentioned by other speakers -- not a single electorate really understood that it was also electing its Metropolitan councillor, because most chose to run strictly on local issues, not Metropolitan issues.

Mr. Wildman: That is how you got elected.

Mr. Faubert: No, I got elected on Metro issues. Does the member want to see my platform?

Mr. Reville: No, spare us.

An hon. member: That would be pretty dull.

Mr. Faubert: That would be pretty dull.

It is interesting, but I do share the concern of the members for Oshawa, Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Beaches-Woodbine that the companion legislation is not here at this time; that is, the election expenses legislation. I know the minister also shares this concern. I am sure we will be seeing this coming forward very shortly. We will see the tabling of this legislation because it is really necessary to control election expenses and to have out in the open how the money is raised and, indeed, where that money is raised from.

As also pointed out by the member for Oshawa, the direct election of the Metro chairman is the heart of the legislation. I have seen the chairman forget many, many times what it is like to be an elected person and I think it is time this most powerful municipal politician in Ontario understands the principle of his or her holding elected office, because that is the very heart of the parliamentary system. On top of that, I think it would make the system of bringing forward a Metro chairman much more understandable to the electorate.

I listened with great interest to the member for Markham. He did raise one interesting point.

Mr. Cousens: Only one?

Mr. Faubert: Only one, and that is what will really happen to the fastest-growing area or the fast-growing urban ring that surrounds Metropolitan Toronto. The greater Metropolitan area right now has no mechanism for addressing within it the problems that are already developing and that we can see, such problems as housing, transportation, land use planning, social services and even such a basic thing as intermunicipal co-operation. It does not exist, there is no mechanism for addressing those, and I think he has raised a very valid point related to that. It is not part of this legislation but I do share his observations.

Basically on that, I think it is time to end the period of uncertainty, not only for how the system will be put into place but also for prospective candidates and incumbents now within the variety of offices who would be prospective candidates for election to the Metropolitan regional council. On that basis, I think we should be prepared to act now. I think, in fairness to their decisions related to their future, it is time to act now and I would urge support of this legislation.

I am not sure at this point in time whether -- there is a motion before us that this go to committee, and on that basis I am not of a mind to support that, but perhaps I could change my mind in relation to the --

Mr. Cousens: When someone talks to you.

Mr. Faubert: Pardon?

Mr. Mahoney: Never say “pardon”; they will repeat it.

Mr. Faubert: Never say “never.”

On that basis, I would urge the Legislature to support the legislation that is before us.

Mr. Pope: I do not think I quite understood the position of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. Is the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere saying he will not agree to this matter being referred to committee?

Mr. Faubert: No.

Mr. Pope: He will not. He will vote against that referral?

Mr. Faubert: I will have to see it. I have not seen the motion yet.

Mr. Pope: I suggest to the honourable member that if he is uncertain as to the arrangements for the processing of this piece of legislation that have been made among House leaders and those with some responsibility for that, he check with those in authority before he stands up and indicates what way he is going to vote on a process matter.

The fact of the matter is that there is a desire on the part of the two opposition parties that this matter be referred to a committee. This matter has been discussed, and I would think the members of the governing party --

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: You are saying no?

Mr. Reycraft: I am saying that is fine.

Mr. Pope: Oh, I see. In that case, we know what we will have to do when the time comes for the vote on proceeding with this matter. The fact of the matter is that the two opposition parties wish this matter to go to a committee, and legitimately so. Members have heard a number of speakers who have indicated concerns, such as the fact that this bill is not proceeding co-tangent with another very important piece of legislation with respect to municipal reform in this province, and I think it is a rather legitimate request of the opposition party to have a committee setting for more detailed discussion.

We now know what the intention of the governing party is. It has been let out of the bag by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and we will govern ourselves accordingly. We now understand what his role will be in this debate and it is our desire, both the official opposition and the third party, to have this matter more fully discussed in committee where we can get some more precise and direct answers from the minister, the ministry staff and the parliamentary assistant, who seems to know so much about this. We are looking forward to that opportunity.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere knows so much about the bill from all the committees in which he has sat on council, and I happen to know him to be a very prominent person from his area. I would also like him to be able to indicate in his speech and in his comments that there is unanimous support from the people in his area for Bill 29. Is he going to be able to say, “No problems in Scarborough; none whatsoever”? The honourable member, when he stood up to make his remarks, indicated that this is the fast track we are on.

1740

The committee had done its assessment of Metro needs and reported back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs over a year ago. Twelve months later, they tabled this bill. We now call it Bill 29. It took them a year to put it together. Had the member’s fast-track government done something last spring when the session resumed -- mind you, the member would not have been here to bring his valuable insight to the floor so that we could understand his views -- at least the House could have dealt with it then. We would have had some time to get more input from the different municipalities involved and have them comment on the ward boundaries. I think that is going to be far more of a problem.

I do not think the member has begun to accept that metric slipped in from the federal government in a way that everybody said, “Metric is going to be easy and good.” This is going to be much like metric for Metro Toronto, when people come along and realize what has happened to their boundaries. Their trustee is from this area, the local councillor is from that area and then the Metro councillor is going to be from another area. It is confusing enough with all the different levels of government we have in this country, but now to have another whole new level, and excluded from a definite working relationship with the other tier I think is a backward step.

How can the member say in such an eloquent way that this is the fast track when it took a year from the time the minister received the report to go and table his legislation?

Mr. Breaugh: I have been provoked and I admit it. As the critic last spring, I received a call from the then minister who told me very clearly that the government had made its decisions about direct election in Metro, had its legislation ready, was prepared to introduce it and wanted it passed by June. Somewhere between that phone call from the minister’s office -- where they said basically, “The bill is ready; we have made up our mind and we want it before we leave at the end of the spring session” -- and entering the chamber, the bill never arrived.

For those members who are somewhat perplexed why a ministerial statement does not quite suffice, it is for precisely that kind of reason. The minister may want to do something. The bill may well be drafted. They may well have made their decision about when they want it, but it does not always mean that it gets in here. It does not always mean that it gets done. In response to the comments made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, I think we should put on the record this afternoon that it is a fact that this government last spring had made its decisions. By last spring this government had drafted the bill. It chose not to introduce the bill.

The government members are not getting very much sympathy in here this afternoon that everything must be done today when we know that better than eight months ago they had made up their minds, drafted their bill and then decided not to proceed with the legislation. Perhaps the minister might respond to that when he replies.

Mr. Harris: I, too, am surprised at the comments from the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, and I might add at the comments from the member for Brantford. I do not know whether it is the minister who is the architect behind this plot to drag this bill out so that it cannot be finished today, or whether it is the parliamentary assistant, who engineered it all on his own, or whether it is just an open revolt by the members of the Liberal caucus, whether it just emerged that way, whether it is organized, orchestrated or whatever.

The minister is nodding his head that he did not, so maybe it is the parliamentary assistant who has organized this charge today in trying to delay this bill even further. We have heard comments of surprise on this bill. We have heard the comments of the member for Oshawa, who has given the members a pretty good history of what happened last spring on this particular piece of legislation. I concur with both the member for Oshawa and the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who expressed concern about the second bill not being ready.

Had I had the opportunity to talk on interim supply, l had a whole list of broken promises in my file today and it looks like it is going to be Friday or next Monday before I get to it. So really, to all these members who appear to be leading the revolt blocking the passage of this bill, the Liberal members, they must appreciate and put into perspective some of the cynicism that we have developed.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) wish to reply?

Mr. Faubert: I am waiting for instructions.

Mr. Pope: Quite frankly, I rise to speak to this bill because of the words of the member for Oshawa. I am shocked that this government had made the decisions contained in this piece of legislation last spring, that it had contacted the member for Oshawa, as the critic, indicated it was bringing in this legislation and then proceeded, obviously for the sake of an upcoming provincial election, for partisan reasons, not to proceed with implementation of this bill.

That is now becoming obvious. The plot has all fallen into place. The Liberal members themselves have started to realize this. That is why Liberal member after Liberal member has risen in his place to speak on this bill, to put his own point of view forward. Liberal member after Liberal member has talked about this bill for the entire afternoon. It is because they understand not only the legislative history of this matter but also the political history of this matter, as has been so ably presented by the member for Oshawa.

We now see a debate on this bill the government did not see fit to introduce, in spite of its promises to the member for Oshawa, until three days before the end of this Legislative Assembly session. Any delay in the passage of this bill relates to the activities of the Liberal members in this House this afternoon, speech after speech after speech: the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) --

Mr. Reycraft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member has continually referred to Liberal member after member who has spoken on this particular bill. By my count, it is three members who have spoken after the minister introduced the bill, and I think if one adds up the amount of time that has been taken by the speakers of all parties on this bill, one would find out our members have spoken the least of any.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the point, they have used other delaying tactics, such as points of order and just generally tying up this House.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank both of you for the points of opinion. May the member for Cochrane South continue?

Mr. Pope: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My House leader forgot to add the numerous interjections by the parliamentary assistant, who had to comment on every single speech that was made on this legislation in this House this afternoon. The parliamentary assistant himself is responsible for some of the delays that we are now seeing in the passage of this bill.

We have put on the record very clearly our concerns about this bill. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has put on the record very clearly her concerns about the absence of companion legislation, an absence of a concrete commitment of this government to municipal government reform in Ontario. Now I understand her point of view, given the history the member for Oshawa has indicated in the House today and given the conduct of the Liberal members on this very important piece of legislation.

1750

There are important issues confronting the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. We have discussed the problems that we have with this legislation vis-à-vis what has been divided responsibility. Maybe the minister could indicate who will assume responsibility, what legislative status they will have, what powers they will have under legislation, how they will report to the Metro council level, how they will report to area municipalities on matters such as emergency planning, the operation of the library system in this great regional municipality, the operation of the parks system and how that dovetails in with the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the operation of the roads and traffic system.

We have heard comment from municipal politician after municipal politician about the concerns over the traffic conditions and situations in this great regional municipality. How will this matter, which is of divided jurisdiction, be resolved between the two levels of government? How will the operation of the sewage and sewage treatment systems be allocated on a legislative basis? What will be the statutory authority? While we are at it, where is the resolution to the garbage dump situation for the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto?

Where is the resolution of the concerns the people of this great municipality have with respect to the water supply system, water quality issues that affect their daily lives, the quality of their recreation here in the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and how we deal with the whole issue of industrial promotion? Who will have responsibility and authority for that matter? How will it be divided? What statutory authority will they be operating under, and who will be making the decisions?

Licensing, the whole issue of planning; how will this be allocated between the different levels? The member for Markham tried in a very brief way to indicate our concerns. This government has refused to listen to the member for Markham. It has refused to listen to the members of our party as we have voiced concerns on this legislation. It is obviously not listening to Metropolitan Toronto politicians. It certainly is not listening to the official opposition party. Who is the government listening to?

Why has there been no explanation given to the member for Markham with respect to his legitimate concerns and our legitimate concerns about this piece of legislation? There have been no answers forthcoming, just a filibuster by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick standing up in their places and trying to ignore the fundamental issues that need to be looked at in this legislation.

There has been no answer to the member for Beaches-Woodbine about the status --

Mr. Reville: A vicious attack.

Mr. Pope: --and the vicious attack on her and the status of the companion piece of legislation. There has been no action on that.

Interjections.

Mr. Pope: A member of the official opposition party asked that I put that on the record, because that is the feeling of the members of the official opposition party with respect to how the member for Beaches-Woodbine has been treated today.

There are a number of very important issues this government has chosen not to answer in this legislative debate today. I think it was incumbent upon the government to answer these legitimate concerns, to do it promptly and to call a halt to the Liberal members’ filibustering of this debate, to call a halt to that kind of tactic and answer directly and immediately the concerns of the member for Markham, the concerns of the member for Oshawa and the concerns of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. We have not seen that conduct from the government today. We have not had the kind of detailed responses that will resolve our concerns, that will give clear, concrete direction and answers to the people of Metropolitan Toronto who are looking for them from this government. We have not seen that at all.

I think it is incumbent upon this government to stand up right now and answer the comments and the questions of the member for Markham with some sort of certainty and specificity so that we know what direction this government is really heading with respect to the governance of this great municipality.

Mr. Harris: I would like to associate myself with the fine remarks of the member for Cochrane South. When we get close to Christmas, I understand that the government has, all of a sudden, these urgent pieces of legislation that it did not have time to introduce last May or last June. Normally, the types of legislation that come forward on these occasions are the kind they do not want close scrutiny of. I cannot think of any other reason why they would wait until the last minute. It is probably to see if they can slip it through in as fast a time as they can and not get the kind of scrutiny this legislation deserves.

That is the only reason I can think of for leaving it this late. I suspect that is probably the reason the companion piece of legislation we are waiting for has not even been introduced. It is so that in this debate, members will not even have an opportunity to comment on how that will fit in with what we are debating in this particular bill.

As well, it is no secret that the minister really wanted to whip this through and get first, second and third reading all in a matter of a couple of days, without having any input, without having any committee time and without taking a look at it. The minister is not answering the questions and legitimate concerns that are being brought forward by the member for Markham, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Oshawa and the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It appears to me that he feels it is something he can whip through: “I will not have to answer. We are going to run out of time before Christmas.” That is not going to happen. That is not the way we deal with legislation here.

Mr. Callahan: I listened very closely to the member for Cochrane South. I was hoping he was going to adjourn the debate so we could see whether he would be here tomorrow. No, I am only kidding.

I learned a new word today in the House, “filibuster.” It has never been done here before.

Mr. Reville: You would not expect a government to do it, would you?

Mr. Breaugh: You have never seen it done by government members on their own bill, that is all.

Mr. Callahan: As I understand it, there were only three members here who spoke on the government side. I watched the third party. The third party looked like sitting ducks in a shooting gallery. They kept popping up and down and debating this issue. I really think the question of filibuster does not apply at all. Maybe they should have used a different word.

For those members who were not here in the past session -- if they were here in the past session they really would have known what a filibuster was The opposition parties, at that time the official opposition, now the third party, and the third party, now the official opposition, spent hours on end in this chamber filibustering things speaking on everything, their genealogy and what the age and size of their dog was. The people out there in Ontario watched that and they realized that this in fact was what was going on, that there was not really anything being said that was meaningful.

Then they have the courage -- it is the only thing I can say -- to stand up here in this Legislature and to say that at this time there is filibustering going on when the number of members from the government who spoke are doubled by those in the opposition.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member who spoke about the age and size of the dog was a Conservative member, so maybe the member would like to correct the record.

Mr. Pope: In the light of the filibuster from the Liberal member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), it is now six of the clock and we cannot continue.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

14 décembre 1987