Journal des débats 1988-févr-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the United Church of Canada and The Canada Conference, The Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 78(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Also, I would like to inform the members that we have with us today the second group of legislative pages to serve in the First Session of the 34th Parliament, 1988. Just so that their names and the ridings from which they come are on record, I would like to read their names:

Anthony Asturi, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; John Barrigar, Carleton East; Jennifer Blackett, Brantford; Heather Boyd, Sarnia; Patrick Chu, Halton Centre; David Dekort, Scarborough North; Brian Delorenzi, Sault Ste. Marie; Wendy Deslauriers, Willowdale; Alene Falomo, Lawrence; Stephen Farragher, Durham Centre; Daryl Graham, Bruce; Angie Hong, Oriole; Cassandra Keefe, Beaches-Woodbine; Leslie Larocque, York East; Colleen Malone, Lincoln; Ross Nairn, Mississauga South; Lianne Pinkney, Timiskaming; Paul Raposo, Scarborough West; Lisa Rothschild, Mississauga West; Mathew Small, Oshawa; Eva Sultana, York Centre; John Paul Vrolyk, Lambton; Paul-Philippe West, York Mills; and Monica Woodbyrne, Sudbury.

Please join me in welcoming these pages.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Hampton: Members will know that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment have announced a class environmental assessment of the forest management practices that are carried on in Ontario. This assessment, the information that will flow from it and the policies that are adopted as a result of it will have a major impact upon all of the people of northern Ontario.

Because of the impact that the assessment and the policies that flow from it will have on the people of northern Ontario, this Legislature and all of the people of Ontario must be informed of the shabby way in which this assessment is going to be carried on.

Incredibly, only one notice of this assessment appeared in newspapers and periodicals across northern Ontario. This one notice appeared one week before Christmas, when people were most likely not to take notice of it.

In fact, all of the forestry companies know the assessment is going on because they can afford to pay lobbyists to keep track of what goes on here at Queen’s Park. The Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association knows that this assessment is being carried on because it has the money to track what is happening. But all the independent loggers, the independent trappers and the local sportsmen’s clubs have no idea of this assessment, have had no opportunity to apply for intervener funding and are being shut out of this very important assessment process.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). An editorial entitled “Province Must Step In To Solve Garbage Crisis” appeared in the January 28 edition of the Orillia Packet and Times daily newspaper and pretty well sums up everything that I have been telling this minister for a long time.

This government is going to have to step in to make a tough decision about where our garbage will have to go in the very near future. Better still, I have repeatedly told this minister that he must establish a province-wide recycling and incineration program in order to reduce the load on our landfill sites.

Has the minister been listening? I think not. Metropolitan Toronto continues to generate massive amounts of garbage at a time when the life of its landfill site is fast running out. North Simcoe municipalities have been forced to transport their garbage at a whopping cost to the Keele Valley landfill site after this government shut down their dump without providing an alternative site locally.

The garbage crisis continues to grow, and all through this the minister has chosen to sit on the sidelines and be unwilling to get involved in this massive and shocking crisis. The time to act is now. The government appears willing to stick its nose into all aspects of our lives except when it comes to our garbage. The time has come when the minister had better stick his nose into this matter.

ABORTION

Mr. McClelland: In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement rendered 11 days ago striking down section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, we, as members of this assembly, together with our colleagues in Parliament and legislative assemblies across the country, are obviously faced with great challenges and, I believe, a significant opportunity.

Many of us in this House hold strongly to the view that life is precious and indeed sacred. Recognizing the complexities involved, I encourage our federal colleagues to respond to the need to bring forward legislation to provide protection for the unborn.

I do not ask my colleagues in this House to put aside their convictions or compromise their integrity in any way. Most, if not all, of us have deeply held feelings on this issue. I ask and challenge my colleagues in all parties to work constructively and with resolve to address the needs of those in society who require assistance.

I believe we can successfully meet the challenges of better educating young people in the area of human sexuality, that we can provide better mechanisms in our communities to help those in need with counselling and other services, and assist those who are looking for help when faced with very difficult decisions. The initiatives begun to provide holistic service by the introduction of women’s health centres are, I believe, now more necessary than ever.

I trust that we can and will in this House work in a spirit of co-operation as we address the challenges that are before us.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Swart: I have here a petition signed by 20,010 people in opposition to wide-open Sunday shopping and to this Liberal government’s local option proposal to accomplish it. It is substantially the largest petition ever from the Niagara district. Stan Brickell, one of the prime movers, is in the Speaker’s gallery today.

This government is totally insensitive to the disruption of families and business that Sunday shopping will create. To most of the retailers, it will not be a voluntary decision whether or not to stay open; it will be survival and/or compulsion.

This paragraph was contained in a letter dated December 11, 1987, sent to all store managers and head offices of Niagara Pen Centre stores by the owners of the mall, Trilea Centres Inc.:

“Under the terms of your lease, you are required to be open for business during the days and hours established by the landlord. Please be advised that Pen Centre will be open for business on Sunday, December 27, 19B7, between the hours of 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. and that all tenants will be required to be open for business on that day.”

Given that five of the six MPPs from the Niagara Peninsula are Liberals, this compulsion, plus the widespread public opinion that petition demonstrates, plus the regional council’s strenuous objection, ought to give them some kind of message about their government’s ill-conceived plan. Shades of beer and wine in the grocery store and shades of a campaign that he and others will mount against this issue.

1340

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: When the people go to vote this year on Monday, November 14, in Metropolitan Toronto, it will probably be the first time that many of them will have come to realize the significant changes that have been made by this government that will for ever affect the people of this great city in this metropolitan area.

Through the efforts of our party, there was a public hearing that took place last week on the new Metro bill, and we had 21 people come and make representations. Tragically, there were not more because there was no public advertising of the committee’s public hearings, but at least one government amendment came through because of the hearings and at least the members were listening to that.

The problem we have is that Metropolitan Toronto politicians are developing their own boundaries. It is too bad the amendment we made, which would have established an independent commission, as is the existing case for federal government politicians and provincial government politicians, did not pass. But this government would not go to the extent of supporting an independent commission to establish boundaries for politicians in Metropolitan Toronto.

I think this would have been a responsible move. It makes no sense just to keep it the way it is. It makes more sense to have a commission that helps politicians show there is honesty and integrity in the boundaries. I also feel this government has made a mistake by not supporting the joint seat option, where a member of the Metro government is also a member of the local government.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of this assembly the benefits of the fare-integration and service-co-ordination pilot project to Mississauga residents.

In the initial phase, the benefits are twofold: cost savings and convenience. Many Mississauga residents work in Metro Toronto, and the twin pass offers them a cost saving of between $10 and $20 a month and the convenience of purchasing and showing one combined pass. Over the long-term phasing, residents of Mississauga can look forward to better co-ordinated scheduling in bus, rail and subway timetables as well as improved facilities to provide easier access to all transportation systems.

During the development of future phasing, transit authorities and municipalities will be jointly involved in expanding the fare integrations, deciding on facility improvements and implementing scheduling changes. Residents will certainly benefit from the future co-ordination of Mississauga Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission. I am pleased to see that the integrated-fare pilot project has met with such a positive response and I look forward to the implementation of a fully co-ordinated system, with integrated fares between Toronto and Mississauga, in the hope that one day we can also have a fully integrated system for senior citizens in Mississauga to be able to travel through the TTC to anywhere they wish within that system.

ASSAULT CHARGE

Mr. Reville: I think it is appropriate to raise very quickly the curious behaviour of the chief law-enforcement officer of the province of Ontario, who allowed a police constable in Toronto to lay a charge against another police constable in a very famous case where it is clear that there were no reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge, at least according to what the police association had to say.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ABORTION

Hon. Mr. Scott: As all honourable members in the assembly know, on January 28 last, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its judgement in the appeal of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and others. In that judgement, the Supreme Court found that section 251 of the Criminal Code violated certain provisions of the Charter of Rights and, in particular, section 7. As a result, the court found that this section, which regulated abortions, was of no force and effect. The result of that decision, as I announced that same day, was that it is no longer a criminal offence in Canada to obtain or perform an abortion.

This decision brought to an end certain prosecutions in this province against Dr. Morgentaler and others. The one case which now remains before our courts will not be pursued, as the law in which it is based has been struck down.

While my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will be addressing in a moment the role of the province in dealing with abortions in the context of our responsibility for health matters, I wish to underline that the federal Parliament has exclusive authority under our Constitution to deal with it in a criminal context.

The Supreme Court, in its three long judgements, did not say that every criminal law dealing with abortion would be unconstitutional. Indeed, one could read some of the judgements as inviting Parliament to address the issue further. Criminal law is a matter over which the Parliament of Canada has exclusive authority and Ontario and this assembly cannot, under our Constitution, pass a law which infringes on Parliament’s right to make criminal law.

It is now up to the federal Minister of Justice to determine whether he will introduce a new law to replace section 251 of the Criminal Code. There have been some suggestions by the federal government that it will move to replace this section. We have not officially, or indeed unofficially, been advised of what the government’s intentions are, but we will, like everyone else in the country, await that decision by the federal government and respond.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to update members of the House on the health issues related to the Supreme Court decision of January 28. In his statement, the Attorney General has identified those matters which fall within his jurisdiction. As Minister of Health, I am concerned about the provision of abortion as a health service.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision, which removed abortion from the Criminal Code, left unanswered a number of important questions. Over the past week or so, we have responded to some of those questions, particularly those dealing with how women can access abortion services in Ontario. On January 29, my ministry issued a list of hospitals in this province which advised us they had in place the process and facilities to provide abortions. Further, we advised hospitals that the Supreme Court decision makes the approval of therapeutic abortion committees unnecessary. We have advised women seeking an abortion to consult their doctors, the Bay Centre for Birth Control in Toronto or any of the hospitals on the list.

In the days following the Supreme Court decision, another issue we addressed was the matter of Ontario health insurance plan funding for abortions performed outside of hospitals. My ministry’s legal opinion indicated that OHIP is obliged to cover these procedures effective the day of the Supreme Court decision, and that payments will be at the OHIP rate. As with any other insured service, the regulations with respect to extra billing will apply.

1350

As a result of the Supreme Court decision, access to and provision of abortion services are now unregulated and many questions have been raised with respect to quality of care and standards of medical practice. It is my strong belief that my ministry has a responsibility to ensure not only access to abortions as a health service, but also reasonable access to services that provide safe, sensitive and timely care.

I want to make sure that abortion services are provided in environments with the highest possible medical standards and monitoring. For these reasons my ministry will be moving quickly to develop, in consultation with health practitioners and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, regulatory measures to govern health care services and facilities. These will ensure that only qualified medical practitioners perform abortion services in approved facilities inside or outside hospitals, that medical standards are established, that quality of care is assured, that appropriate funding mechanisms are in place and that counselling, including counselling on alternatives, is provided before the procedure and as a follow-up.

In addition, these regulations will prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of commercial and/or unregulated abortion clinics, a scenario made possible by the Supreme Court decision. These regulations flow from our government’s concern over the quality and availability of women’s health services. I want to ensure the highest quality of standards, care and counselling for women seeking these services.

As the members know, this government is committed to ensuring effective and accessible health services for the women of Ontario. A women’s health bureau is now functioning in the ministry and is responsible for promoting greater awareness of women’s health issues.

In addition, my ministry has been working in consultation with hospitals, professional associations and community organizations to develop a range of comprehensive programs for women and we are moving ahead with the development of women’s health centres. So far, we have established services at four hospitals that include, among other services, family planning and contraception, pregnancy testing and counselling services for sexual assault victims, and other programs specifically designed to meet women’s health needs.

My ministry wants to be sure that women in all areas of the province have access to the highest-quality services possible and our efforts will continue to be focused on that goal.

PENSION BENEFITS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am pleased to inform the members that I have received the report of the Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employment Pension Plans. I believe members are aware that copies of a prepublication draft were released on January 21, 1988. The printed report, along with two volumes of research papers, has now been distributed to all members of the House. Copies of the material are available to the public through the Ontario Government Bookstore.

The Legislature has already passed legislation affirming its commitment to indexation of private pension plans. In December 1986, the government appointed a task force to determine the most appropriate formula and phase-in procedures for such indexation, and to consider related questions, including the disposition of surplus funds in pension plans.

Martin Friedland, professor of law, University of Toronto, and a fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, chaired the task force. The other members were E. Sydney Jackson, chairman of the board of Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., and Clifford Pilkey, immediate past president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Friedland and Messrs. Pilkey and Jackson for their excellent work. They have presented a very comprehensive report and I am most appreciative of their efforts.

We are currently reviewing the report and weighing its recommendations. It is my intention to bring forward the government’s position on the appropriate implementation mechanisms for inflation protection in the form of proposed legislation as soon as possible. The Legislature would then, of course, decide how it wishes to proceed. While I expect to see a full debate on the government’s policy, I would also hope to see legislation in place by year-end.

Members will recall that at the time the task force was announced, the government placed a moratorium on the withdrawal of surplus funds from ongoing pension plans. None the less, we are concerned, as well, about protecting the interests of employees and retirees who are involved in planned windups.

Therefore, as an interim step, we are expanding the moratorium on withdrawal of surplus funds to include planned windup, conversion and sale-of-business situations. This will effectively freeze all surpluses until the government policy is finalized.

Expansion of the moratorium will involve enacting new regulations under the Pension Benefits Act. All future windups will be affected, along with any now in process. This will mean that a moratorium will be in place on all withdrawals of funds.

We considered carefully whether there was a need to place a similar moratorium on what are often called contribution holidays, whereby a plan sponsor might adjust the contribution level in any particular year. It is important to recognize that funding levels are based on long-term estimates, and as such, year-to-year fluctuations are not critical.

Moreover, the government is satisfied that the funding regulations set out in the recently enacted Pension Benefits Act ensure that a plan must be fully funded. These include improved funding requirements and a stipulation that all plan liabilities -- including costs arising from the improved benefits under the new act, such as improved survivor benefits, earlier vesting and 50 per cent employer funding -- be met before a contribution holiday can be taken.

The expanded moratorium takes effect immediately and will remain in place until the government’s policy on the overall issue of inflation protection is finalized.

ONTARIO HERITAGE WEEK

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: As Minister of Culture and Communications, I am pleased to announce that Ontario’s third annual Heritage Week will be observed this year from Monday, February 15, to Sunday, February 21.

Heritage Week gives us the opportunity to recognize and celebrate our rich heritage and our cultural diversity. The theme for this year’s event is Ontario’s Heritage: Take It to Heart. This province-wide celebration has been jointly co-ordinated by my ministry and one of its agencies, the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The week embraces several important objectives.

It improves the public’s understanding of our broad definition of “heritage.” This definition includes five major areas: architectural, historical, archaeological, natural and cultural heritage. In this context, “cultural” includes not only the arts, but also Ontario’s multicultural diversity.

This week also invites us to salute provincial heritage organizations and the thousands of volunteers who contribute to heritage activities. Several heritage groups are celebrating important anniversaries this year. The Ontario Heritage Foundation celebrates its 20th anniversary in 1988. In addition, the Ontario Black History Society celebrates its 10th anniversary, the Archives of Ontario celebrates its 85th and the Ontario Historical Society celebrates its 100th.

The real heart of heritage occurs at the community level. Therefore, Heritage Week fosters support and encouragement for heritage activities throughout the province. Libraries, schools, museums, municipalities and historical societies are sponsoring hundreds of Heritage Week events across Ontario.

Here in Toronto, in keeping with the multicultural strategy announced last June, the Archives of Ontario will launch its multicultural heritage program. In Peterborough, the local architectural conservation advisory committee is presenting its sixth annual Heritage Week walk and treasure hunt. The Kemptville and District Historical Society is staging an exhibition in the town hall and schoolchildren in Kenora are planning to attend an assembly featuring multicultural musicians and dancers.

As the celebrations unfold, I am pleased to inform you that we are also making progress with the Ontario heritage policy review. I announced this project last February and two months later we released a discussion paper titled Heritage: Giving Our Past a Future. I am happy to note that this paper highlights the present-day value of heritage by indicating the social and economic benefits of heritage preservation.

Since releasing the discussion paper, we have received wide-ranging comments from across the province. After reviewing these suggestions, we have put together a comprehensive report which summarizes public views. For those members interested in reading this document, please note that it will be available in March.

Also next month, we will meet with other ministries and various provincial associations. We plan to discuss the role which all ministries play in the field of heritage conservation. I am confident that our talks will be useful in co-ordinating our government’s efforts.

In closing, I would like to invite all members to the flag-raising and kick-off ceremonies for Ontario Heritage Week. The festivities will begin at 10 a.m. here at Queen’s Park on Heritage Day, Monday, February 15. I also urge members to support their local heritage groups and to participate in their community’s heritage events. Judging by the number of activities planned, Ontarians are certainly taking heritage to heart.

1400

RESPONSES

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. B. Rae: I want to begin by responding to the remarks of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). I thought that in the interests of clarity on the record, he might have stated that Mr. Pilkey dissented from some of the most important recommendations of the majority of the commission.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, he signed the report.

Mr. B. Rae: He also signed a dissent; the Treasurer cannot deny that.

The government has a very important role to play now and some key decisions to make on how it is going to protect people who are now retired and how it is going to protect people who are going to retire, because we do not think those people have been adequately protected by the recommendations that have come from the majority of the Friedland commission. We expect the government to do more in protecting those people who are not being protected. We look forward to those recommendations as they come from the bowels of the Treasury and of the government.

ABORTION

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond principally to the comments of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and to the comments of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). I think it is unquestionable that all of us, both here in this Legislature and in the Parliament of Canada, are now faced with some major decisions.

I want to say to the minister that I think she has to recognize that the thrust of the government’s approach to this question of abortion, up until a week ago, was based on the premise that section 251 of the Criminal Code was in place and was in fact the law of Canada. Dr. Powell’s recommendations, for example, on the establishment of women’s health centres exclusively within hospitals were recommendations based entirely on the fact that the minister’s instructions to Dr. Powell were that she could deal only with hospitals because that was what the Criminal Code said.

So I want to say to the minister that in making her recommendations to cabinet and in bringing forward policies on behalf of the women of this province, and indeed on behalf of all the people of this province, she has to take into account some very fundamental facts about our health care system. It probably is not wise to burden hospitals exclusively with the provision of women’s health services, in particular, with the provision of abortion.

I say to the minister that it is important for her, yes, to make sure that only qualified doctors perform, of course; yes, to make sure that it is done in a way that is operated on a not-for-profit basis, of course, but also to make sure that it is done in a way that is the most sensitive, the most flexible, the fairest and, yes, the most accessible, because as the minister will know, there are literally hundreds of hospitals in this province which, for a variety of reasons, have not performed abortions up until now and in all likelihood will not unless their policies change in response to changes in policy from the government.

My view and the view of our party is that it would be wise for this government and in the interests of everyone for two things to happen: first, rather than this government trading pot-shots back and forth with the federal government -- which may be good politics from the Attorney General’s standpoint -- surely it is in the interests of all Canadians that the federal and provincial governments get together and decide precisely what the general direction of policy is going to be; and, second, that when it comes to the policies from the province of Ontario, we make it clear that the Supreme Court has spoken, that the right of women to choose is protected by our Constitution in terms of rights of conscience and liberty and security of the person, and that we have an obligation as a Legislature to maintain that Constitution and to protect and advance the cause of women’s rights and of women’s health care. That is why we are here, that is what our job is, and we intend to do that in as fair and practical a way as we possibly can.

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to both the statement by the Attorney General and the statement by the Minister of Health this afternoon. I might say at the outset that with respect to the statement made by the Attorney General, I may remind him that indeed it was he who initiated this appeal some 18 months ago. To now say that he will await the decision by the federal government is, I suppose, very convenient in a very delicate subject that apparently he does not want to soil his hands with.

This province, the Attorney General and the Minister of Health cannot remove themselves from responsibilities that they have to the people of Ontario in partaking and, hopefully, agreeing with the federal government and the other provinces in Canada as to what stand they will take on this very important issue.

I know this government does not take that stand, for example, on the issue of free trade. They do not sit back and say that they will await the decision of the federal government. How hypocritical and how inconsistent can you get?

I wish to be somewhat more charitable with respect to my remarks on the statement made today by the Minister of Health, however, I find that her statement is very sensitive, and this is a very sensitive issue. I agree with a lot of the points, quite frankly, that she makes in her statement.

The only criticism I would have is that she and her colleagues have had 18 months to prepare a game plan, an either/or scenario, unless they thought, of course, that the greatest lawyer in the history of Canada, as the Attorney General professes himself to be from time to time thought he could not possibly lose this appeal, so they did not bother to devise a scenario in case section 251 of the Criminal Code would be struck down and the Attorney General lose his appeal.

The minister has had 18 months to prepare a game plan, to prepare and consult with medical and other groups across the province, and indeed with her federal colleagues in this eventuality. I think the people of this province expect and deserve an immediate response by herself and by her government to this very sensitive issue, and we shall be looking forward to that in the days to come.

ONTARIO HERITAGE WEEK

Mrs. Marland: I, too, would like to use the opportunity to recognize the announcement of Ontario Heritage Week. Certainly, as a member of the party that established Heritage Day, obviously we are very supportive of this continuing initiative of the present government. I hope it is not relevant that this year’s Heritage Week starts on my 54th birthday, however.

In saluting the number of volunteers who are involved in heritage organizations throughout this province, I think it goes without saying that, as with all volunteer organizations, there is not anything that any level of government can do that can measure the amount of work and effort that these people contribute to our communities. There is not anything we can do as well as they do in a lot of areas, and the celebration of our heritage is indeed one of those examples.

In recognizing the amount of work volunteers do, I would like to suggest that people who are interested in a local celebration of Heritage Week might like to attend the celebration in Mississauga next Monday, February 15, and very much enjoy the program that is organized for that day, including a dinner in the evening. One of the prime movers and organizers of that particular event is Mrs. Mercia Harrison, who is very well recognized as a volunteer for the historical societies within our community.

To emphasize the fact that our heritage is the most important aspect of where we are today, I would suggest that each one of us looks into the past as we reach for the future and benefit from the legacy of the people who have left for us a very rich cultural heritage in this province.

In closing, I would like to suggest that this government could take quite an initiative from the designation of more communities for historical merit. In fact, in Mississauga we have the village of Meadowvale, which was the first district to be designated as a historical district rather than just a building, and that initiative has proven to be very successful, it enhances the community, and I would encourage other members in this Legislature to try to pursue that particular direction on behalf of the motto of the city of Mississauga, which is, “Pride in Our Past and Faith in the Future.”

1410

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the House should be aware that this is probably the first time a quarterly financial report has been put out and not commented on in the House. It is so embarrassing, the lack of control of expenditure. I just point out that this quarterly report, Ontario Finances, has embarrassed the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to the point where he does not even want to comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could I have your attention for a moment, please?

SEATING PLAN

Mr. Speaker: When I arrived in the House today I noticed, and have had a number of members draw to my attention, that there are a number of errors in the printing of the seating plan.

Mr. B. Rae: Am I still here?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That’s an error that has nothing to do with printing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to ask the indulgence of the House. If we could go by the seating plan we had in the previous sitting until we are able to get this corrected by the printer, I accept responsibility for it and apologize to the House.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, I want to express the thanks of our party for the statement you have just made. We thought this was circulated by the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan). If you will look on the seating plan, he had moved into the front row.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to rise and introduce some very distinguished visitors in our gallery. We are joined today by Mayor Pascual Maragalls, mayor of the city of Barcelona; his wife, Ms. Diana Garrigosa; and the Spanish ambassador, Antonio Jose Fournier, in the company of our own distinguished mayor, Mr. Eggleton.

May I say, before they stand and are welcomed to this House, that we are delighted that Barcelona is the host of the 1992 Olympics. We know they will put on a spectacular show and we know that many Canadians will go and visit, just as we invite them back to the 1996 Olympics in Toronto.

Mr. Harris: I just have one more point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain the member would advise under what standing order.

Mr. Harris: Yes. It is a point of privilege, actually, concerning the privileges of every member of this House, a matter of the expenditure of several millions of dollars. I would ask you as Speaker to investigate why, in view of the expenditure of that amount of money on the Thom report and the amount of time since the Thom report has been received, it has not been tabled in the Legislature.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to welcome the Premier home. I hate to bring him down to earth with such a clunk. Nevertheless, I want to take him on a little tour of memory lane. He will remember the day he called the election. The headline in the paper was, “Peterson Calls Vote to Tackle Free Trade.” We all remember the election being called, and of course we all remember the result of that election and the mandate he received. Then, of course, we are surprised to learn in a report from Davos, Switzerland, where --

An hon. member: Is this show and tell?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, it is show and tell. The Premier was there, together with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). It says, “Premier Junks Turner’s Stance on Pact.”

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is a different paper, though; it is not the Star.

Mr. B. Rae: It is a different paper. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) points out that this, of course, is not the official voice of the Premier, so we cannot tell what it is, though some of us are beginning to wonder.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier this question: Can we interpret his position on free trade as this, that his advice to Mr. Mulroney is that he should not have signed the deal, but that his advice to Mr. Turner is that he should not tear it up? Is that now the position of the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me thank my honourable friend for reminding me of those very happy days during the election, and I do think back with great fondness. Let me at the same time congratulate my honourable friend on his powers of reproduction and reminding us of those things. One of the things is that I have no power over what is written, good or bad, about me, about him or about anyone else. I can tell my friend that our position throughout has been consistent and clear, and I think the people of this province know that.

Mr. B. Rae: If we knew what it was we could tell. Here is the third one in this series. This is from the Financial Post, which is a well-known New Democratic Party publication: “Peterson Concedes Defeat in Fight Against Free Trade Pact.” That is the message that he apparently took with him when he went on his trip to Europe. While in Europe the Premier had this to say:

“I’m not in a position to speak for John Turner, and I wouldn’t presume to give him advice, but I can understand how one phrase or one picture can characterize a situation that never takes into account all the subtleties. We have taken a ride pretty close to the altar to turn around and walk away.”

Does the Premier now consider a trip to the altar with Uncle Sam? Is that the position he is now adopting as Premier of Ontario? Is that his stance?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No. As I said, I think our position has been quite clear. My honourable friend likes to bring forward various interpretations; he is entitled to do that, and I can understand his concern about not having anybody report his view on these matters.

One of the factors we have discussed, one of the pressures in the situation, is what has happened and the effects of changing all of that. Obviously, in any complicated discussion there are many factors, past and current, that come into account. I have not changed at all my view of the nature of the deal. I had the opportunity to share those views with people in Europe, and they know very clearly that I do not believe that deal is in the national interest. I think that is very clear. Some like it and some do not like it, very frankly. But I say to my friend that our views throughout have been very clear and I think people know them.

Mr. B. Rae: The deal has now been signed. It is not law yet in the United States and it is not law yet in Canada in the sense that enabling legislation has not come down, but in Canada the deal has been signed on behalf of the government of Canada by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would like to ask the Premier, if he is opposed to the deal, is it his advice to the government of Canada that notice should be given under the terms of that agreement to break that agreement or to terminate that agreement? Is that his advice to the government of Canada? If that is not his advice, what the hell is it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The deal is not the law of the land. My honourable friend is quite wrong in his interpretation. It does not become the law of the land until it comes forward in implementing legislation both here and in the United States. I assume my honourable friend understands that. Until that domestic implementation legislation comes along and we know the specifics, no one knows exactly how that is going to come about.

l say to my honourable friend, it is going to be litigated in front of an audience of the people of this country. They will pass judgement on it and I will urge them not to support it.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier of this province has not been prepared to tell the people of Canada and the people of Ontario what he thinks should be done with this trade agreement. In fact, his advice is that it should go ahead. That is his new position.

1420

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier with respect to the issue of Sunday shopping. The Premier has participated in many federal-provincial conferences, one of which discussed a paper put forward by the government of Ontario, dated June 1987 and put out by the Ontario women’s directorate.

The paper talks both about hours of business and about the question of working time. It says: “However, as is the case with flex time” -- talking about hours of business -- “this initiative should ensure that common time off is set aside when all family members can be together.” On page 4 of the document, it says: “There is a need to recognize the need for time to be set aside when all family members can be together” -- exactly the same words.

I want to ask the Premier, is it still the position of the government of Ontario that we need to have laws in this province which will ensure that family members will be able to spend common time together? Is that the position of the government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think any law of any Legislature in any land on this globe can pass a law to say that family members have to be together. Some choose to be and some do not, I say to my honourable friend. I think he should look at this particular document in all of its aspects, and he may want to quote from it quite fairly, because it recognizes changes that are going on with respect to the workplace. It recognizes that more and more women are participating in the workforce. We recognize, on one hand, not only the needs of the family but also the need and desire to participate fully in the workforce and have flexibility with respect to the other options.

The member will be aware that some of the principles talk about the right to participate equally in the paid workforce and balance all of the other responsibilities that family members have. He will recall that under the social-and-economic-issue heading one of the matters for future discussion is hours of business and service in public sectors which are accessible to workers. So we have the questions of accessibility, shopping and other things as well. I think my honourable friend would want to look at it in its broad context, not just the narrow context.

Mr. B. Rae: Let us be clear on what the position of the government is. Is the Premier in favour of the principle of family members having a common day, a common time when they can be together? Is he in favour of that principle? He says twice in this document that he is; he stated twice in this document that he is in favour of it. If he is in favour of it, why is he so determined to give the matter over to the municipalities and open it up so that workers will have no protection and families will have no guarantee that they can spend common time together? He should make up his mind. What is his position on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s attuned legal mind, which usually directs such precision to these matters, has abandoned him completely in this particular question. The interpretations he has drawn are not accurate. I do not believe that is the case in other areas where in fact there are more flexible work hours. I say to him that it does not necessarily mean that everybody is going to be working on Sunday because it brings some flexibility into the system. Presumably, if that is his view on the situation, he would close down tourist exemption areas; he would close down some of the things that exist now. So I do not think my honourable friend is bringing a degree of intellectual precision to this argument, and I disagree with his approach.

Mr. B. Rae: I take an attack on my intellectual imprecision from the Premier very seriously indeed; there is an expert in the field talking. But let us go back here; let us talk about precision. Here we have people from Copp’s Buildall, ordinary Canadians in his own constituency, writing to him, to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and to Mr. Van Horne. The names of all the employees are there, and they are saying quite simply that they want to be able to spend time --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Robin Sears was busy getting all of this stuff.

Mr. B. Rae: The Attorney General is heckling. The Attorney General may not be interested in families being able to spend time together on Sunday. A lot of other people are interested in this question and think it is important. They do not want to see a 60-hour workweek imposed by the Liberal government of Ontario. That is not what they are interested in.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier aware of the depth of feeling of a number of groups across this province that are deeply concerned about having to spend time away from their families because of his approach to this legislation? Will he not take a step back, realize that the Legislature spoke as recently as last year on this question and recognize that he has absolutely no mandate in opinion, in terms of what he campaigned on in the last election or what the people in stores right across this province and in their family living rooms across this province are saying? Does he not realize he has no mandate to do what he is doing on this question?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend talks about mandates. I do not agree with his analysis in that particular regard. That presumably would give him no mandate to say anything on any issue. I do not view it that way. He is absolutely entitled to stand up in this House and speak on any issue, on whatever he likes. My honourable friend presumably disagrees with the fact that so many aspects of our lives are open on Sunday and that now, at the present time, there is commercial activity there. I think the argument he adopts, if we measure its real effect in other jurisdictions where this happens, does not bear out the doom-and-gloom consequences he may in fact predict. I do not believe my honourable friend is accurate in his analysis. I do not think it is going to lead to those kinds of problems.

I recognize there are lots of people who disagree with this, just as there are lots of people who disagree with many of the decisions this government takes. But I think it takes into account the diverse nature of this province. It allows municipalities to make decisions with respect to the unique natures of their own municipalities. It does not imply for a minute that the whole place will be wide open. That decision will be made by people who best understand the community values, varying from community to community. They do it now six days a week.

Why can they not do it seven days? They control the tourist exemption.

It is not a question of going backwards. I think the question is one of dragging my honourable friend into the future.

ABORTION

Mr. Brandt: I would like to start off this brief session of the Legislature by welcoming the Premier back from his trip to Europe. We are pleased to see him back, and we are pleased to have him right back where we want him. He is welcome back.

My question is to the Premier with respect to the Supreme Court decision on the matter of abortions. The Premier is aware, and I am sure he has been briefed on this since his return, that there are now literally no restrictions on abortions in Canada as a result of that decision.

Our party, however, is very concerned about the fact that there are also no comments other than some passing musings by the Supreme Court with respect to the rights of the unborn as they relate to the abortion question.

The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has indicated in statements she has made to the media that perhaps something in the order of 25 weeks might be an appropriate time frame. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has indicated that perhaps something in the order of 12 to 13 weeks may be an appropriate time frame for abortions to be considered, at maximum.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: I know the Premier may well wish to pass this entire matter over to the federal government, but I would suggest to him that it is a provincial responsibility as well. What does this government intend to do with respect to ending restrictive practices relative to abortions in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that legal question to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suppose on the Premier’s behalf I should begin by thanking the member for welcoming the Premier back. I want to make clear on behalf of our party that the leader of the third party is exactly where we want him to be too: as leader of the third party. The postponement of the convention of the Conservative Party for a year caused us a little concern, but we are glad he is where he is.

I think it is worth pointing out that section 251 of the Criminal Code was in the code precisely because the Parliament of Canada placed a value on the foetus before birth. It was not there for medical reasons, it was there to protect the interests of the foetus. Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the federal Parliament have acknowledged that is an exclusively federal matter.

I cannot answer the honourable member’s question about what is appropriate in terms of protection for the foetus, but I have made perfectly clear that when the Attorney General of Canada has proposals to make in this regard, we would be glad to see them and I would be glad to convey the view of the House on that subject to him when he asks and when he submits proposals to us.

Mr. Brandt: There are mechanisms available to the government of Ontario, as the Attorney General well knows. He has the Public Hospitals Act, and the Health Insurance Act, in which he can establish certain health standards, as opposed to Criminal Code standards that are established, as we recognize, by the federal government.

Our question is very clear. Other provinces are looking very seriously at this question as well. It is unacceptable, from the standpoint of our party, that abortions be performed in this province, which are now legal under the Supreme Court decision, at nine months less one day. That is totally unacceptable to us. We are asking that the government of Ontario act to place some reasonable restrictions under the health authority it has so that this cannot be the case in this province.

1430

Hon. Mr. Scott: I agree, as I am sure most’ if not all, of my colleagues agree, that the situation the honourable member envisages is a misfortune. It results because a federal law passed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to protect the interest of the foetus has failed. We are looking forward to proposals the federal government may make to remedy that failure.

I want to be fair. It is a difficult question. All of us may have a different view, but we will do what we can to assist the federal government, if there is such a request, in evaluating the proposals it develops to protect the interest of the foetus. The province has no constitutional authority to do that.

Mr. Brandt: The Attorney General has indicated that he intends to share with the federal government what this House thinks relative to that question. I would like the Attorney General to share with us what this House thinks before he passes it on to the government of Canada so that we can have some degree of unanimity, if at all possible, on this question.

I would like to share as well with the Attorney General the fact that he has had spokesmen from his party, including some of the back-benchers of his party, who have indicated that this is in fact a shared responsibility between the provincial government and the government of Canada. I would suggest to him that it is his responsibility to act under the health regulations and authorities he has to regulate this very important question and to protect the life of the unborn in this province.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would be delighted to pass on any views the honourable member may have. He knows how to get in touch with me in that regard. But I want to emphasize that it is not a shared responsibility. The honourable member is saying that in the House, but it is not true. I draw to his attention his own letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, dated February 4, 1988, where he says:

“However, the federal Parliament is the only body that can enact legislation that would encode protection for the unborn child in the Criminal Code. While our caucus recognizes the complexity of the issues that must be determined prior to this action being taken, we also believe that the importance of this question is such that the federal government must act expeditiously to fill the vacuum left by the Supreme Court decision.”

I agree with that.

Mr. Brandt: If you are doing some selective reading, why don’t you read the letter I wrote to the Minister of Health as well?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Because it was different. You say two different things in two different letters.

Mr. Brandt: No, I don’t say different things.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The standing orders allow other members to ask questions. New question, the member for Parry Sound.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister is aware of the huge increase in the amount of money the government will have to pay doctors this year under the Ontario health insurance plan. The minister has admitted that part of the increase is due to the fact that there has been an increased use of medical services. The minister will recall that during the Bill 94 debate, the government was warned not only by members of our party but also by others that such increases would result from a ban on extra billing. It seems as though the revolving-door system of health care indeed is developing here in Ontario.

Does the minister believe that the quality of care given to patients has remained the same since doctors began seeing more patients?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: On the matter the member raised, I have spoken with the Ontario Medical Association about the increase in physician utilization. We are very concerned about the increase in OHIP payments and will continue to monitor those.

Mr. Eves: The minister will recall that during the past election campaign -- the one before that, I might add -- there was a promise to eliminate OHIP premiums. Much to-do was made of the fact during the Bill 94 debate that the province would gain $106.7 million as a result of the ban on extra billing. We now find that is not even one fifth of the amount of extra money, $500 million, that they are going to have to pay out under OHIP now that extra billing has been banned. We find out that exactly what we, the OMA and others predicted is happening.

What steps is the minister taking to rectify this situation?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The figures the member opposite quotes are not accurate. I want to assure the member that we are very aware of the situation. However, there is nothing to suggest that physicians are not acting in the best interests of the provision of medical services in this province. Our information is that the increase is as a result of the number of doctors who are providing service in this province as opposed to simply an increase in the utilization by individual physicians.

Mr. Eves: Also during the Bill 94 debate, the minister will recall that our party, as well as the Ontario Medical Association and others, predicted that a two-tiered system of health services would result in Ontario. Now we find, of course, the gold-card privilege system has been in existence at Toronto General Hospital for the last year.

Will the minister not admit that this is exactly what we were afraid of, a two-tiered system? What steps is she taking to ensure that this will not happen again in the future?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: To be fair, the member opposite knows that the case he has cited is wholly inaccurate. We do not have a two-tiered system of health care in this province. When it was brought to my attention that there was a telephone number available for visitors to this province, we moved to ask the hospital to dissociate itself from this registry and it has done so.

ABORTION

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health, and l might point out that when the minister knew about this gold-card system some months ago, she did nothing until my leader raised it in the press, but my question is not in that connection at all, it is in connection with access to abortions.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that abortion is a private and personal matter and that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies and their own lives. But it is not correct to say, as does the leader of the third party, that there now are literally no restrictions, and I think everybody in this House knows that.

As long as there is uneven access across the province, then women are continuing to be denied the right to control their bodies. I would like the minister to tell the House today what specific plans she has to ensure that all women in Ontario do indeed have equal access to safe and sensitive abortion services.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In the light of the Supreme Court decision, we do find ourselves in Ontario in an unregulated environment. As I have stated on numerous occasions, we will be moving very quickly to bring forward regulations which will ensure that standards of medical practice are established, that we will have only qualified physicians providing this service, that quality of care is assured and appropriate funding mechanisms will be in place. I personally believe that counselling is a very important component.

Regarding the issue of access, we have been saying for quite some time now that we are committed to provision of reasonable access to the women of this province to needed health services.

Mr. Reville: What we have had from the Minister of Health is a recorded announcement. In spite of the rhetoric that comes forth from the minister’s mouth in terms of community care, I am wondering whether or not she is now prepared to stand in the Legislature and make a commitment today to funding a network of community-controlled clinics which will provide the full range of women’s health services, including abortion services, and will she specifically commit her government to integrating the Morgentaler and Scott clinics into such a system?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to assure the member and members of this House that we are committed to ensuring access to therapeutic abortion services in this province in a timely and sensitive way. I do believe, however, that they should be in a regulated and controlled environment to ensure the highest-possible medical standards and monitoring. I also want to ensure that the program approach of comprehensive women’s health services and provision of counselling, particularly alternative counselling, are available to women at what is a very difficult and traumatic time.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister was asked a question some three months ago by our House leader, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), on what the status was of the Thom report, a report on rent control and rental accommodation in Ontario. At that time, she said the report was delayed because it was still in the process of being translated.

Now we are in the fortunate position of having the English version, which was done in April 1987, some five months before the election date, and then the French report, which is in a looseleaf binder. We are glad to have them at last, but wondering what is going to happen with them now.

1440

To reach the question to the minister, why has she covered it up? Why has she released the report on the day the issue came out about abortion’? Why is it that she has tried to cover the whole --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Are you still attacking rent controls over there? Are you still opposed to rent controls?

Mr. Cousens: I have the floor.

An hon. member: Just barely.

Mr. Cousens: I am asking the question of the minister, why has she tried to cover up the Thom report?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The Thom report was delivered to every single member’s box on the day we released it. I do not consider that to be covering up the report.

Mr. Cousens: If this minister or this government, primarily the government, wanted to deal with the important issue of rent control and the problems surrounding rent control -- and the fact is that the report had been finished some five months before the election of September 10 -- then this report would have been publicly released. It would have given everyone a chance to debate it and it would have had some public discussion.

I think it is time now to face up to the fact that people are interested in this. Housing is a major crisis in this province. Will she not, as minister, refer this report to a committee for analysis, discussion and debate so that the public can become aware of the implications of rent control and what can be done about it?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: When I came into my job in the ministry, I thought it was important for me to learn about the rent review legislation we currently have. I took a certain amount of time to work through that and to understand it. I then took some time to understand the implications of the Thom report. When I had done that and had come to some conclusions about it, that is when the report was released.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Poole: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As members of this House are aware, on January 27, Melvin Glenn Stanton escaped custody while on parole at the Montgomery Centre halfway house near Yonge and Eglinton. Shortly after Stanton’s escape, a woman was brutally murdered at 200 Balliol Street. Police have now laid charges against Melvin Stanton. My office has been flooded with calls from constituents who are terrified that this might occur again.

Since police protection is under provincial jurisdiction, would the Solicitor General be good enough to tell the House what action she has taken to protect my community?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to assure the member that I share her very real concern in this matter, as do we all. Indeed, we had a case very similar to this not that long ago in Ottawa. Cecilia Ruygrok was killed in the same tragic way. She was actually working in a halfway house at the time she was murdered.

Because of this, I had already written to the Honourable Mr. Kelleher, the Solicitor General in Ottawa, very much emphasizing to the minister the need for much greater communication and for informing the police fully whenever a person with any violence in his past is returned to society on probation.

We are pressing this case in an even stronger way now. It was already recommended in the coroner’s inquest. We are making more contact to make sure this is done.

Ms. Poole: I have here a letter dated December 1986 from the Solicitor General of Canada, addressed to me as the director of Sherwood Park Residents’ Association. In this letter, James Kelleher assured me that the inmates of Montgomery Centre would pose no threat to the community. He promised that the Metropolitan Toronto Police would be closely involved to ensure community safety. At the same time, the Ministry of Correctional Services promised me that only nonviolent offenders would be assigned to the Montgomery Centre.

Despite these assurances, a man with a conviction record of rape and manslaughter was assigned to that centre. Despite these assurances, Metro police were not even notified until 14 hours after the escape that he was even in the centre. It appears that Mr. Kelleher’s standard of community safety is not the same as ours.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Poole: Will the minister demand that the complete criminal records of every parolee assigned to Montgomery Centre be given to Metro police before the parolee goes to the centre, so my community can be protected?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Once again, I sincerely agree with the honourable member’s sentiments in this matter and we will do everything we can. I would very much appreciate getting a copy of that letter so it can enforce my hand in dealing with this, and I will be glad to get in touch with Mr. Kelleher on that very particular letter.

Aside from that, we have already had discussions in my ministry. We agree that the names of people with violent histories should be made available to the police immediately. There is some question of confidentiality with regard to the total record, for reasons that do exist, but the police should have the information they need in order to provide for the safety of the people.

CONVERT-TO-RENT PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister is aware that there is a convert-to-rent project under way at 235 Grandravine Drive in the city of North York. Alderman Howard Moscoe has provided her with a considerable amount of information which clearly establishes that a convert-to-rent program was used, theoretically to provide affordable housing, but in this instance was used and is still being used, as far as we could determine, for the retail sale of these apartment units.

What steps has the minister taken to prevent this, to recover the moneys the ministry has invested in this project and perhaps to consider prosecution in the matter?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The people in my ministry went and investigated the case that the honourable member opposite has described today. I am glad to tell him that the case is now under prosecution and we are asking for our money back.

Mr. Breaugh: I am aware now that a number of projects under the convert-to-rent program, supposedly to provide affordable housing, have clearly been abused. Is the minister considering any changes in regulations or altering the program somewhat so that it actually would provide affordable rental units?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: If the honourable member opposite has any further examples, such as the one he brought into the House last time, I would be glad to have them. However, I should also tell him that the convert-to-rent project is under review right now and we will make sure that it meets the goals we set for it.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the proposed conflict-of-interest legislation. We were debating that matter in committee over the past few weeks. There was an interesting hypothetical question that was raised during committee, and perhaps the Premier could lend some clarification to this.

Suppose a member of some cabinet of his in the future were to own shares in a family-held corporation and that corporation were to enter into an agreement or a contract with Ontario. The example my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) chose to use in the committee, and I would concur in, is, for example, a forest management agreement worth, say, some $20 million over the term of the contract.

I am sure that would never happen, but suppose it did, and suppose that when that particular cabinet member filed his or her conflict-of-interest declaration, these facts were to come to light. Under the proposed Bill 1, would that member continue? Would he or she be able to continue to be a member of the Premier’s executive council, knowing that he, she or that corporation had entered into that contract?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: When I was elected on September 18, 1975, the first thing I learned was to never answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Eves: Perhaps the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) could lend some direction to the Premier on this matter. The Attorney General had no problem at all in answering this question in committee. He indicated to members of the committee and to myself that section 10 of the Legislative Assembly Act of Ontario would prohibit such action by any member; in fact, any member of the assembly would not be permitted to sit as a member of the Legislature, let alone a member of the executive council.

Perhaps the Attorney General’s memory was lacking that day, because if he had referred to section 11 of the Legislative Assembly Act he would find that there, among the numerous exemptions laid out, are exemptions for forest management agreements.

Would the Premier care to give this House his undertaking today that he will amend section 11 of the Legislative Assembly Act to cover up all these exemptions and get rid of them so that we will have true conflict-of-interest legislation here in Ontario?

1450

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I admire very much his conversion and his party’s conversion on these matters of conflict of interest. This legislation is pioneering legislation, admired widely across this country. If he has any ideas on how to improve it -- l gather there is going to be a debate this afternoon -- he may put those questions to the very competent minister who is carrying this matter. I can assure the member that the minister will be able to persuade him that this is legislation worthy of support by all members of this House.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Attorney General. The court system in the region of Peel is known as one of the most complicated, bureaucratic court systems in this province. As an example, a constituent of mine has called and told me of an incident that occurred in November 1986. A claim was filed in small claims court in April 1987, and he was told it would be heard in February 1988, a lead time of 10 months. He was told last week that it would likely be a further eight months, a total delay of 23 months from the date of the incident.

In a separate case, a court date for an appeal of a decision made in May 1987 has been set at September 1989, a lag time of over two years.

Mr. Mahoney: Can the Attorney General tell this House how he can improve this unacceptable situation in the region of Peel?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very grateful for the question. As the honourable member knows -- indeed he quite properly boasts about it with regularity -- the county of Peel is probably the fastest-growing county in the country. In a county that grows as quickly as that, with an increase of 50,000 to 60,000 a year, the size of a small city, all the public systems that exist in that community are stressed in these kinds of ways. The kind of pressure that has existed on the court system in Peel is duplicated in other services as well.

I am aware of the honourable member’s problem. Indeed, he has brought it graphically to my attention on behalf of his constituents. As he will know, we announced not long ago our priority list for court construction. I am happy to reconfirm with him that, still, the county of Peel is very high on that list.

Mr. Mahoney: By way of supplementary, I appreciate the answer by the Attorney General. The announcement that the Attorney General referred to was made in this House on December 3 and, fortunately, Brampton was actually third on the priority list for some work in the courthouse. I wonder, though, if the Attorney General could tell me and this House when the capital-project list that was announced on that date will be implemented and when we will be able to begin.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is one thing I do not, of course, by myself have the power to announce, but the honourable member can be sure that his concerns are being brought very graphically to our attention.

One of the really good things about the last election is that we now have five out of six of the members in Peel county, and probably for the first time we have been able to hear graphically the concerns about the systems that are in that growing county.

Even with a previous Premier of the province being from Peel county, no steps were taken to even consider putting Peel county on a priority list for courthouse construction. I am delighted that we, who come from foreign places, were able to see the importance of that work and to get those placements on the priority list, which I am sure we all hope will in due course produce a construction program.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have just heard that Joseph Kuhle, who was charged last year with four counts of criminal negligence with respect to a mining accident at Inco, has been acquitted on all four charges.

I have not raised this subject publicly since events of some time ago, because obviously in the last few days we were aware that certain plea bargaining went on with respect to charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Yet we had not heard from the judge on this one and I wanted to wait until we heard from the judge before asking the Attorney General about this.

I wonder if the Attorney General would at least investigate how it is that a plea bargain with Inco resulted in the dropping of several charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act in exchange for an admission of guilt on some and a fine of $25,000. I wonder if the Attorney General could investigate how that could have happened at the same time as a charge of criminal negligence causing death with respect to four miners could have been laid against an individual worker, which I am sure the Attorney General must recognize is universally felt in that community to have been a most unfair proceeding with respect to Mr. Kuhle and the company involved.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would be glad to do so.

Mr. B. Rae: I have raised this with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) in estimates. I would like to raise it with the Attorney General. I wonder if the minister could sit down with the Minister of Labour and draft a clear protocol that is understood by everybody -- crown attorneys, police, investigators under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and in all other respects -- so that everybody understands from the beginning how investigations are going to be conducted and what evidentiary rules are going to be followed with respect to local union inquest committees and so on, so we do not have this kind of what I really think is a terrible injustice done to one individual worker in this province.

I wonder if the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour could agree that those rules of the game will at least be made public and clear to everybody who is involved.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be glad to look into that. As the honourable member knows, the investigation of criminal offences -- this is not true of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act -- is undertaken by the municipal police force. It is not undertaken either by the Solicitor General’s department or by the Attorney General’s department.

When a police officer is prepared to make oath that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe, and does believe, that an offence has been committed, he takes that to the justice of the peace. If the justice of the peace, after examination, accepts that oath, then the charge process has commenced and can only lead to a trial or a stay of prosecution. The process, in short, is out of the Attorney General’s hands and out of the crown attorney’s hands except in so far as they may be asked to give advice on the adequacy of the evidence.

That is the process. I will be glad to see how that can be effectively integrated with processes under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but from the criminal end, in this case the process was followed. It produced a prosecution. My friend may be entirely right that the acquittal was entirely warranted, but that is the way the criminal process works.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs which has to do with North York council which is today debating whether or not to hold a public plebiscite on Sunday shopping with this year’s municipal elections.

To this point in time, his government has had no policy statement to give guidance on municipal elections to municipal politicians. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) is all over the map on the issue. No direction has been given at all to the municipalities. There is no legislation at this point in time. It is rather difficult for municipalities to make decisions about plebiscites.

When is the minister going to give some clear direction to municipalities just what their responsibilities are on this important matter?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Before making any particular comment or policy in regard to this particular issue, I think it is very important to meet with the municipal people. I have been doing that for some period of time. I have met with the executive of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I was meeting this morning with the Rural Ontario Municipal Association.

The question of whether or not to be open on Sundays is already an option for the municipalities, and more and more of those I talk to are very much aware of that. The question to be determined is whether they want to declare themselves a tourist area. Today, the question of the definition of “tourism” is very difficult indeed to define. So the municipalities can determine for themselves if they wish to be open on Sunday or not. That is a municipal option.

Mr. Cousens: That is one answer that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Markham has a supplementary.

Mr. Cousens: I would be surprised if the minister believes his own answer, because it is all talking but he is not listening. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario had a vote last week and by a vote of 70 to three were opposed to this whole business of Sunday shopping and opening it up. The minister can meet them all he wants but he has to do some listening in return. Let me ask the minister, does he think it appropriate for municipalities to hold plebiscites to resolve regional or provincial issues of this nature and will he be providing the funding to cover the costs?

1500

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The option of whether they want to be open or not is theirs and they can deal with it in the way they wish. Members will notice that North York was going to declare itself a tourist area and it is its right to do that. All municipalities of this province have the opportunity, if they wish, to be open on that day by declaring themselves a tourist area. I would challenge anyone in this House to tell me what area of Ontario is not a tourist area, because this government, the previous government, through the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, have made funding available to the 12 regions, known as the Ontario travel association program, to promote tourism in every corner of this province. I would challenge the member to tell me what part of the province is not tourism related or has that potential.

FIRE PREVENTION

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Solicitor General regarding home fire prevention and fire safety education.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You do not like those letters from the firefighters, Frank.

Mr. Faubert: I love them.

In 1987, the Scarborough Fire Department responded to 212 apartment fires and 327 house fires, which is an increase of over 18 per cent over 1986; and of this total, 162 were grease fires. Last year, the Solicitor General indicated in a letter addressed to Fire Chief William Wretham that the ministry had been working on a fire prevention program or publicity initiative which would be comparable to the crime prevention program. My question to the minister is, will the minister advise the House on the present status of this initiative?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to report to the member that in fact this initiative is working very well. We have put in place a person whose full-time job is working on fire prevention. He is Captain Greg Alexander, a former firefighter, who is working with the municipalities to try to increase the education of the people in this very important area. As well, we are putting together a television news clip which the members of the House will soon be able to see and hear on their television sets. This indeed will be a very secure way of getting the message to everybody to avoid these very casual household cooking accidents and other types of accidents which do indeed cause so many fires.

Mr. Faubert: The minister may be aware of a report entitled the Report of the Public Inquiry into Fire Safety in Highrise Buildings, commissioned in 1983 by the Ontario government. The report included, and I quote, “The office of the fire marshal should receive sufficient funds to implement a more active public education program.” Will the minister advise the Legislature whether these funds have or will be provided for this valuable and potentially life-saving program?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would point out that the two programs I have already announced, the full-time employment of Mr. Alexander in the firefighting field and the television program that has been put together, both involved expenditures of money. As well, we are setting up an advisory committee of people especially knowledgeable in this area to advise the ministry of anything further it should be doing. We are taking part in trade shows of all types to try to emphasize prevention and make information available to people to see what kinds of preventive tools they could have in their homes. As well, we are doing extensive work in the schools in putting together publications for the general public. All of these things cost money. We are funding them and will continue to do so.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware and remember that last year the standing committee on social development spent a fair amount of time working on amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, and specifically passing a bill of rights for residents in nursing homes across this province. I have sent across to her a copy of a contract that Reliacare Inc., which is a nursing home chain in southwestern Ontario -- specifically it owns three nursing homes in the Windsor area, Tecumseh, Riverside and Essex -- is asking its residents to sign which I believe specifically takes away the rights that we gave residents in the bill of rights.

Does the minister think it is appropriate for a contract to say that before residents can complain to the Minister of Health about the nursing home they must first share that complaint with the administrator of the nursing home?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the member for sending me a copy of this agreement -- it is the first opportunity that I have had to see this -- and to share with him the philosophy of the bill of rights, which enables seniors to take a more active role in the daily operation of nursing homes.

I would be pleased to review this and determine whether or not this meets the spirit of the nursing home bill of rights.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I should point out to the minister that I understand the philosophy of the bill of rights. I wrote the bill of rights and presented it in the committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Supplementary to the Minister of Health.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister think it is appropriate that one of the largest nursing home chains in southwestern Ontario -- Reliacare Inc. operating out of Owen Sound and has several hundred nursing home beds in southwestern Ontario -- is it appropriate for section 3 of their contract, under definitions, to say: “Restraints means any article which is applied to a resident’s body which restricts his or her voluntary movement and over which the resident has no control. Geriatric chairs, wheelchairs, bedside rails, seat belts and any other safety mechanisms are not considered to be restraints”?

What is the purpose of giving people rights in one section of the Nursing Homes Act, only to have those rights to refuse restraints taken away by a contract of a nursing home? What is she going to do to prevent this from happening?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have stated on other occasions in this House that my concern regarding and for residents within nursing homes is and always will be quality of care, quality of life and the dignity of the individual. I would be pleased to review the member’s request and have a conversation with him regarding the statement that he has just read out now and any implications that it might have, or the effect on residents within nursing homes.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agricuture and Food: I have a copy of his recent report here, Assessment of the Impacts of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement on the Ontario Agriculture and Food Sector.

This impact study states that there is a $95 million loss to the agriculture industry in Ontario. Would the minister not agree, in the light of some of the recent announcements by the Honourable John Wise, that this is a little bit exaggerated?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The federal Minister of Agriculture announced that there would be milk products added to the import control list. I hope he is right. We have not seen those products added to the list yet, and neither do we know what levels are being added. Until we do know, I think our report is quite accurate, but if the milk products -- -at the levels which are acceptable -- are added to the import control list, then I would say, yes, we would have to probably reduce the figure of a $10 million loss to the dairy industry.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister knows that the grape growers will definitely be affected, not by free trade but by a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision.

Whether or not this trade is not relevant, and as the $10 million loss that the minister says the dairy industry would suffer probably will not occur, would he not, now that he has admitted that this is likely outdated, present a new report, one that represents a lot more accurately what will be happening to agriculture because of free trade?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not think the member was listening to my response. I did not say that report was outdated. We are putting a lot of blind trust in what is going on in Ottawa, and always have ever since the Prime Minister got a bee in his bonnet that he was going to enter into a free trade agreement come hell or high water.

It is hell for a lot of the farmers in Ontario because it does translate into a $95 million loss to the farmers; $50 million to the fruit and vegetable growers because of a worthless snapback provision, $30 million to the wheat producers because of the loss of the two price wheat system, and $15 million to the grape growers which happens to be half of the 1986 income in that area. If the member does not think that is a tremendous loss to the farmers of this province then it is just a matter of his not caring. No sector of the agricultural industry should be affected.

1510

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. This parliament started off with announcements of the importance of education to this government and an announcement that there would be a select committee, which we have still not seen even established, let alone a mandate announced for in this House, which means we will not get any action until at least this summer, even though recently we have seen the minister attacking in a blistering fashion his own ministry for producing illiterate graduates.

I wonder whether the minister could tell us today whether or not he intends to bring forward George Radwanski’s report to this Legislature this week, since the government has had it in its hands for over a month now, which was obviously the cause of his blistering attack as an attempt to ease the pain of what Mr. Radwanski was going to say, or is he planning to do this when this House is not in session so that we cannot ask him any questions?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I respond to the honourable member by indicating that it is my intention to release Mr. Radwanski’s report just as soon as it is available in both official languages. I expect that will be in only a matter of weeks.

With reference to his preamble and this government’s commitment to education initiatives, I refer the member for Scarborough West to the recent throne speech. There are a large number of initiatives indicated in the throne speech and we will be moving forward with many of those initiatives in the context of the grant regulations that are currently being drawn up for the funding of those initiatives in the coming year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: While I welcome the news, which most members of the House do not seem to have recognized, that we now have two official languages in the province, and we are very pleased to hear that, I would also like the minister to know that I am aware the report was written in both English and French at the same time, in concurrent fashion. They were both completed in December. There may be some printing problems but he is definitely holding it up. I want to know, will he bring it in this week? Will it be in here by Thursday at the latest so that we will have some chance to ask him some questions, or does he intend to let it just sit there quietly for two months until we come back again? The select committee clearly is not going to be set up to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I indicate to my honourable friend that he is indeed incorrect if he assumes the report was available in both French and English.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I talked to the writer.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot give him a commitment that the report will be released this week. It will be made available just as soon as copies are available in both French and English.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

Mr. McCague: To the Minister of Housing: will the minister refer the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies to a committee of this Legislature?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: No, I will not.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sudbury East.

Miss Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). I did not see him slip out.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour is not in his seat.

Miss Martel: All right, then, I will have to pass.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Will the minister, through the report with regard to the Oak Ridge centre, make arrangements and make sure the new Oak Ridge centre in Penetanguishene will proceed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to share with the member his concern and tell him that a priority for me and for my ministry is the eventual redevelopment of the Oak Ridge facility. We have proceeded with the implementation of the Hucker report and I believe we are making progress. We thank him for his question on this very important matter.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Kanter: I have two petitions from a total of 204 citizens concerned that naturopathy continue to have self-governing status.

Mr. Pelissero: I would like to present to the Legislature a petition, signed by 375 persons of the riding of Lincoln in the Niagara Peninsula, which calls upon the government to “introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Swart: I want to table a petition, signed by 20,010 people from the Niagara Peninsula, which reads as follows:

“Petition to the government of Ontario re Sunday openings:

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Niagara, support the intent and recommendations of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada, rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need for a common pause day for family nurture.

“We therefore call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as a common pause day.”

I suggest that this is representative of the views of the people in the Niagara Peninsula.

RECREATION TRAIL

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition signed by 304 persons from east-central Ontario as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“That we are in favour of the former Canadian National line known as the Marmora subdivision being developed as a recreation trail.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from several hundred people in Peterborough and general area:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition as follows:

We are opposed to wide-open Sunday shopping.

“We are the employees, consumers and families who will be most detrimentally affected by the lack of legislation with respect to Sunday closing.

“We respectfully request the government reconsider its position regarding the Retail Business Holidays Act.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On behalf of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), I would like to table the following petition:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition he parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mr. Fleet: I have a petition, signed by 300 people in the riding of High Park-Swansea and elsewhere in Ontario, wherein they assert their constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of their preference. They acknowledge that naturopathy has had a self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years and specifically petition this Legislature to call upon the Ontario government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. McCague: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislature of Ontario. This petition is signed by 376 residents of Staynor in my riding who are opposed to Sunday shopping:

“We, the undersigned, believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people in our province. We object to the further commercializing of life through the proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Dietsch: I have a petition signed by 79 signatories of St. Catharines-Brock and surrounding area:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

1520

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition signed by some 8,000 people residing in the city of North York and it goes as follows:

“We, the undersigned residents of North York, object strongly to any change in current legislation or practice that would permit wide-open Sunday shopping beyond the very few restricted special cases now receiving exemption. We feel that wide-open Sunday shopping will erode the tradition of a common day of rest and the cohesiveness of the family unit along with it.

“Moreover, we reject the proposed plebiscite in North York as a means to determine whether the municipality should permit wide-open Sunday shopping.

“We call on North York city council to abandon the proposed plebiscite and on Premier Peterson to exercise his legislative responsibility and leadership on behalf of the interests of workers and families by ensuring that Sundays stay closed to shopping.”

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs. Stoner from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr. Epp from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 1, An Act to provide for greater Certainty in the Reconciliation of the Personal Interests of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council with their Duties of Office, the title of which is amended to read “An Act respecting Conflicts of Interest of Members of the Assembly and the Executive Council.”

M. Epp du Comité permanent de l’Assemblée législative présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption:

Le comité fait rapport du projet de loi suivant, modifié:

Le projet de loi 1, Loi assurant une plus grande certitude quant au rapprochement des intérêts personnels des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres avec les devoirs de leurs fonctions, dont le titre, modifié, sera « Loi concernant les conflits d’intérêts des membres de l’Assemblée et du Conseil des ministres. »

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plenier de la Chambre.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 2, An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that, notwithstanding the order of the House of Thursday, January 7, 1988, the House authorizes the meeting of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on Monday, January 25, 1988, to consider Bill 1; and the House further authorizes the attendance of the chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs at the meeting of the American Bar Association on the Canada-US free trade agreement in Washington, DC, on January 28 and 29, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the requirement for notice with respect to private member’s ballot item 10 be waived.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I did not hear whether Bill 29 was referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Harris: Yes. In spite of your absence, we looked after it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT OF ONTARIO ACT

Ms. Hart moved first reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Chartered Institute of Marketing Management of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of the bill is to create a legal presumption of joint custody to both parents seeking custody when families divide. The presumption is rebutted if the court determines that joint custody is not in the best interests of the child. The criteria for the best interests of the child are altered to provide a social and legislative context which rewards co-operation, not adversarial obstruction, in custody matters.

The bill contains a so-called “friendly parent” provision whereby, if sole custody should be awarded, consideration must go to whichever parent, among other factors, is more prepared to co-operate with the other and to involve the other in the child’s life. A parenting agreement to guide the parents in their decision-making about the child shall be made by the parents with the aid of a mediator if they choose, court-ordered if mediation fails. A parenting agreement may provide for mediation to resolve the parents’ differences of opinion concerning the best interests of the child or concerning the interpretation of the agreement.

Where a parent does not act in accordance with the requirements of the parenting agreement, the court may rescind the order for joint custody and may grant sole custody to the other parent. Where a custody order was made before the bill comes into force, a parent may apply to a court after a specified time for a review of that order under these new provisions.

LEBON GOLD MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr49, An Act to revive Lebon Gold Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

BIG CEDAR ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Owen moved first reading of Bill Pr2, An act to revive Big Cedar Association.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 17, 20, 26, 75, 87, the interim answer to question 78 and the response to petition P-8 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Thursday, February 11].

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that subsection 5a(4) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(4) The recommendation under subsection (3),

“(a) shall provide for the establishment of,

“(i) the number of Metropolitan wards in each area municipality that is equal to the number of persons to be elected to the Metropolitan council from that area municipality under subsection 5(1); and

“(ii) the number of local wards in each area municipality that is equal to or a multiple in whole numbers of the number of Metropolitan wards in that area municipality and each local ward shall be located entirely within one Metropolitan ward;

“(b) shall take into account the principle of representation by population, the existence of local boundaries and communities and any patterns of future growth;

“(c) shall propose that all local wards in a Metropolitan ward be single member wards; and

“(d) shall propose that each Metropolitan ward have the same number of local wards.”

Ms. Bryden: By way of explanation, I think it became clear to those of us who sat on the general government committee last week that Bill 29 is defective in setting forth precise guidelines for the minister to follow in making his recommendation to cabinet on the boundary proposals to be approved by the government under the bill. We were not fully aware of the implications of the clauses in Bill 29 affecting the minister’s recommendation until we heard the various representations from the public and from municipal councils in the area. It became evident that the present legislation permits boundary proposals which some deputants called gerrymandering.

As we all know, boundary changes at the federal and provincial levels are not left to incumbent politicians to determine. They are dealt with by independent boundary commissions because past history has illustrated that incumbents’ self-interest makes objectivity difficult at best and impossible for at least some politicians.

The gerrymanders now shaping up in Toronto show that it is equally inappropriate to leave the task of boundary setting to politicians at the municipal level. Unfortunately, the minister was so dilatory in bringing in the Metro reform bill that there was no time to set up an independent commission to draw the boundaries for the 1988 elections.

This is a unique situation. We are given a responsibility, as a Legislature, to produce guidelines which will meet the objectives we all share in achieving a democratic system of election in this area. Those objectives are representation by population, equal treatment of different parts of each municipality, preservation of neighbourhoods and avoidance of strip wards. The Ontario Municipal Board at an earlier phase in this history of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto had removed strip wards and replaced them with block wards on the ground that this was the fair way to represent different sections of the community and different interests.

The other need for the guidelines that we should adopt as part of this legislation, and which I am moving as my amendment, is to remove the opportunity for manipulation of boundaries to protect incumbents’ current seats. The present legislation allows this manipulation by specifying that the number of area wards can range from one, two, three, four or five within a Metro ward, and this is not equal representation in the various Metro wards. We must recognize that municipal politicians have a conflict of interest when they set their own boundaries. Many of the deputations appearing before the committee pointed this out.

We were shown maps which for the city of Toronto showed four possible boundary options. I would be glad to supply the maps to any member who is interested in looking at the details. We were also shown a map presented by the Toronto Board of Education which showed proposed boundaries that cut across Metro wards and which form very little relation to the municipal wards that had been proposed to the city council.

We have to recognize that the legislation is flawed in not setting forth guidelines which would prevent the kind of proposals which appear to be unfair and which will not produce equal representation.

The legislation is also flawed in that there is no limit on the amount of variation from an average figure for the various area boards and metropolitan wards. The minister, apparently, in some of his communications to the municipalities and schools boards, indicated a plus or minus 25 per cent; but even that is not in the legislation.

1540

As legislators, we really have to step into a local situation in this case. This is not a partisan issue. It is an attempt to get a fair system of municipal boundaries within the various municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and within the school boards. While the minister may talk about the importance of preserving local autonomy, and I also support that principle, we must make sure that local autonomy is limited to rules and regulations which will ensure fairness and an opportunity for all viewpoints to obtain representation on councils.

I think we have to weigh that against the principle of local autonomy and give the minister the power to refuse proposals that come to him which appear to violate some of those principles I have mentioned; that is, good representation by population, as close as can be obtained; equal treatment of different parts of each municipality; avoidance of strip wards; and preservation of neighbourhoods. That is the purpose of my amendment.

If you look at them individually, you will see that the first provides that “the number of Metropolitan wards in each area municipality” should be “equal to the number of persons to be elected to the Metropolitan council from that area municipality”; and the legislation sets forth the number of Metropolitan council members. If they are entitled to six Metropolitan council members, they should have six Metropolitan wards. That is actually already in the legislation. I am just repeating it as one of the guidelines that is in the legislation.

The second, subclause 5a(4)(a)(ii), goes further, though. It says that when you deal with local wards in each area municipality, the number to be set up should be equal to or a “multiple in whole numbers of the number of Metropolitan wards in that area municipality.” The reason is that this then would ensure that in each Metropolitan ward there would be area wards which are a multiple of the number of Metropolitan wards.

For instance, in the city of Toronto, they are entitled to eight metropolitan wards. They can have eight, 16 or possibly 24 area wards, and that could be divided equally among the Metropolitan wards; but 24 is virtually ruled out by the objective of the legislation, which I think most of us agree should be to simplify and reduce the size of Metropolitan government in the municipality of Toronto and in the six municipalities.

The third amendment gives the minister definite guidelines about following the principle of rep by pop and the existence of local boundaries and communities and any patterns of future growth. This is not in the act at present. While the minister may take account of it in making his recommendation to cabinet for the boundaries, it is better to have it spelled out in the legislation so that in challenging those boundaries before the Ontario Municipal Board in future, or before any other body that is set up to allow for boundary revision, there are principles written into the act. Therefore. I am asking the Legislature to legislate those principles in clause 5a(4)(b).

In clause 5a(4)(c), I propose that we seek the objective that I think a great many politicians in this House would support, and that is single-member wards in all parts of Metropolitan Toronto at both levels, the Metro level and the other level. We have found in the past that the dual-member or the three-member-at-large wards are very undemocratic in that two or three people represent a very large area and there is no delineation of their particular responsibilities or the geographic limitation on their responsibilities within that large ward.

Finally, under clause 5a(4) (d), each Metropolitan ward shall have the same number of local wards. We should not allow, as the present legislation does, that you can have as many as two, three or four area wards in one Metropolitan ward in different municipalities. It should be the same number in each Metropolitan ward.

Under subclause 5a(4)(a)(ii) there is the additional principle, which I did not mention as I talked about it, that each local ward should be located entirely within one Metropolitan ward.

When we come to vote on these amendments, I hope we will vote on each of the five proposals in the amendment before the members.

If we produce woolly guidelines or legislation which allows for manipulation by incumbents to violate the principles, we will be accused of failing to ensure democracy at the local level.

We have to remember that municipalities are the creatures of the province under our Constitution. We do not want to unduly fetter them, but it is our responsibility to see that they operate in a democratic way. It is our responsibility to see that the opportunities for gerrymandering are removed. Representation by population, as we all know, is our most sacred principle and we know it has been tampered with over many generations by governments and legislators.

I am urging members to use their legislative power to aim at the objective of representation by population in a more precise way than the present legislation allows. I think this reflects the views of the many deputations that appeared before the committee, but it was only as a result of the hearings that we were able to obtain a picture of what is really going on in the field of boundary changes in the six municipalities.

There are two other areas that came up in the committee hearings that I think we should consider. One is the fact that there is no legislation in the bill about election expenditures. I realize it is out of order to discuss this, but we had hoped the minister would have his election expenses legislation, limiting the size of contributions and of election expenditures and providing for full disclosure of election expenditures, before this House now so we would know exactly to what extent he was intending to implement his announcement last fall that he was bringing in such legislation. That is another defect to the bill. It could be remedied if the minister at least would bring in his bill on that question.

We have also had no indication from the minister as to whether he is going to attempt to bring a tax rebate system for municipal electors similar to what they did at the federal and provincial level. I think that also is a piece missing from the picture for the next 1988 municipal elections across the province. We hope that could also be clarified before the House finishes up this week.

The other thing that bothers me about Bill 29 is that while the Minister of Municipal Affairs is given the power to approve whatever boundary proposals come forward and has then to submit them to the cabinet for final approval, there is nothing in this legislation that mentions school boards in any way; yet the boundaries for the school board elections will have to be determined at the same time.

We were told in the committee that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) would have the final say. He may consult with the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) if he wishes -- he told us he was doing so -- and he may consult with the school boards, but the final proposals that he approves for the school boards will have a great bearing on the boundary changes for the municipal elections in 1988. It is not clear to what extent they can deviate from the municipal boundaries, since the elections are conducted by the municipal clerks at the same time for school boards and for municipal councillors.

1550

That is a weakness in the legislation, and I even question whether it may be the cause of possible challenge in the courts to the minister’s recommendation of school board boundaries in that there is nothing specific in the legislation which authorizes him to make recommendations for school board boundaries. I think it has been very unfair to the trustees and the school board electors across Metropolitan Toronto that they have had no guidelines from the minister that have been published, telling them what the rules will be for boundary changes in the school boards. This applies to separate school boards, public school boards and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board.

Before we consider passing this legislation, the minister should clarify to us why the school boards were left out and whether the same sorts of guidelines that apply to the municipalities will apply to the school boards. If so, they would, of course, be covered by my proposed guidelines, but at the moment I think it is a great insult to the trustees and to the electors at the school board level that they have been virtually neglected in the discussion on this legislation.

I tried to move an amendment to bring the school boards under Bill 29 in the committee and I was ruled out of order on the grounds that it was not there and I could not insert it. I think it is a great weakness in the legislation, and I am surprised that the legal powers allowed the legislation to go forward without empowering the Minister of Municipal Affairs and/or the Minister of Education to make recommendations on school board boundaries in order to submit them to the cabinet. That is another area we really would like information from the minister on.

I want to just say that if the city of Toronto, for example, should adopt one of the four options that are now before it -- those options include two that are really gerrymander options -- if it should adopt one of the gerrymander options, we will really be deciding the makeup of the council, both the Metro council and the city of Toronto council, for the next three years and that is a grave responsibility.

I think we should not be allowing the possibility of the options which do not provide a fair and equitable representation across the city being considered. It appears that a group of right-wing councillors and aldermen have twisted and distorted the boundaries that were put forth by the city clerk and the city planning department in two alternative proposals which appear to have no other purpose than to entrench their own positions.

The situation at the school board is even worse. Here the right-wing majority, against a combined opposition of all other trustees and against public protests, adopted a set of proposed boundaries which defy rationality and common sense. Boundaries cut across Metro wards and bear little relationship to any of the proposals from Metro and city wards. If approved, they would lead to widespread confusion in this fall’s municipal election. Again, the only purpose appears to be to entrench the positions of the majority members.

Any changes to the municipal boundaries must meet with the approval of the provincial government, so that now the only thing that stands in the way of giving Metro Toronto back to the developers’ lobbies is the backbone of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the cabinet.

I therefore urge him and the cabinet to reject all gerrymander proposals and approve only those proposals which provide for fair and equal representation and a democratic system of election in this very large municipality. There are approximately 2.2 million people in this area affected by this bill.

My amendments set forth guidelines which would ensure that Metro reform not only gives us direct election, which most of us want, but also gives us an improvement in representation. That is the purpose of the amendments -- to give the government a chance to bind itself by guidelines which would rule out the kind of manipulation that is going on. It is possibly going on in other municipalities, but I do not have as much information on it as I do on the city of Toronto and the Toronto school board.

The fact that we do not have any disclosure of election expenses either leaves people to believe that the developers’ influence may continue and grow if we allow the city also to have wards in which there is unequal representation instead of getting councils elected which represent the different viewpoints in the city.

I think it is a very serious situation. All the electors in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto deserve a kind of election reform that is something we can be proud of, that will not have to be challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board next year after the election is all over and that will ensure we are really making real progress towards representation by population and fairness.

Incidentally, on the appeal to the municipal board, I think it is highly inappropriate as the body to have the appeal go to after this election because it is not versed in the principles of electoral representation. It is mainly concerned with the economics of development and balancing community interests against the economics of development.

In the meantime, after this bill is passed and after the 1988 election, I think the government should bring in legislation to provide an independent boundary-setting body for the whole province, not just for Metro Toronto. That body could take over the task that is given to the OMB in this legislation and we could have a much more appropriate group of people making the decisions about future boundary changes, the same as are made at the federal and provincial level.

I do not think you can delegate it to the federal or provincial boundary commissions either. It should be a province-wide body that would be available whenever a municipality in the province wishes boundary changes, that could examine the various possibilities and then rule on what would be a fair changing of the boundaries after listening to public input.

There was a little public input on Bill 29. I understand the minister encouraged the municipalities to do so. I am not too aware of what the extent of public input in all of the municipalities was and I think that is another principle that must be demanded by the government in boundary changes in the future. There must be full opportunity for examining the various proposals that are brought forward by the independent body, as there is at the federal and provincial levels; because it can make mistakes too, but at least it does not make mistakes because of a conflict of interest if it is a truly independent body.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to consider putting my amendment to a vote on each item and I hope that the House will decide it is important to remove the flaws in Bill 29 before we put it through.

1600

Mr. Cousens: There are a number of flaws, not only in the bill itself but also in the process that has been followed with this bill. If you go back some length of time, there has been a long review of the need to look at Metropolitan Toronto government. Indeed, one of the reports that was done on it was done by the Honourable John P. Robarts in June 1977 -- Metropolitan Toronto, A Framework for the Future.

For a long time, politicians in and around Metropolitan Toronto have realized there has to be reform of Metro government. In fact, our party supports the intentions behind that kind of reform, of direct elections and so on. There are a number of initiatives in this bill that go back to some of the thinking that existed in the Robarts report and in the excellent report that was tabled in the House in November 1986.

At that time, another report was done that gave a number of options on how Metro government could be changed and how best to implement some of those changes. It did not come out with specific recommendations, but it meant that from November 1986 to the time we finally got Bill 29 tabled in the House, there was an opportunity for the government to respond, to think and to dialogue with those municipalities.

A large part of the problem with this bill is just in the way it has been handled by the government. It was not until November 23 last year, some three or so months ago, that the government tabled Bill 29 for first reading. That meant we are talking less than a year from the time the bill will have had to be considered by this House, fully debated and understood, to the time the people of Metropolitan Toronto will have an opportunity to really think about the changes that are going to be made affecting the future of Metropolitan Toronto government.

This bill has significant implications. We are now creating the seventh-largest government in Canada in the creation of the Metropolitan Toronto government. It has implications of a financial nature. As we heard last week in the representations made by some of the councillors and others who came, they are aware of the cost of democracy. The salaries that will go into paying the new Metro councillors exceed even those made by back-benchers of this House -- I think some $57,000 -- but then there is going to be secretarial staff, office equipment, computers. Who knows the costs that will surround the creation of Metropolitan Toronto government?

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I am not saying I am opposed to that either. What I am concerned about is that when you make that kind of commitment, then you must make sure that all the people involved understand what the true costs are.

We are probably one of the most governed people in the world. I am glad we have democracy, but when you start thinking of all the different levels, we are now creating for the people of Metropolitan Toronto another layer, another tier of government, and I have great concerns with certain elements of this bill as to the impact and effect it is going to have in the long term on the dealings that go on in successful negotiations that are part of a Metropolitan Toronto government.

Therefore, I am concerned with the way this bill has been brought forward. It was not until November 23 that the government tabled Bill 29 for first reading. We have it here, Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. We are now here, some two and a half months after the bill was debated in the House. It was our party that was able to successfully force this bill into committee for public hearings so that there would be an opportunity for ourselves not only to make some reasonable amendments but also to hear what the public had to say about how it felt about this bill.

It is interesting how many people came and made representations. Twenty-one presentations were made to the committee; two were private citizens, nine were local politicians, two were senior officials at the local level, three were school board trustees and five were representatives of interested groups and organizations.

I venture to say that the reason we had only 21 presentations is that we did not go and advertise and let the people of Toronto know that we were in the process of making such significant changes to the future of Metro government. People in Toronto and the Metro area do not know what we have been doing. It is a terrible situation to be in, where you have a parliamentary committee looking at the future of Metro government and at that meeting we did not even have a chance to hear what the people had to say, because the people in Metro had probably not heard about it.

I know there had been press releases and there had been letters sent through the chairman of the standing committee on general government, not only to councils but to the associations in Metro Toronto, but there is also a group known as the general public, that silent majority who just assume that everything is going to be looked after. How would they know about it when there had not been some proper way of letting them know? There was no public advertising by this Legislature or by that committee.

I am very grateful to one of the members of our committee, and I would like to put it on record because it is not often one gives compliments to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney). The member for Mississauga West prepared a motion, which he placed in that committee last week, that would hopefully lead to more public sessions when we are having public hearings, by asking for the committees to have some advertising and some way by which the public can be informed.

It is unfortunate that this did not happen in time. It is terrible. What worries me --

Mr. Chairman: Order. May I ask you how this relates to the amendment to section 3?

Mr. Cousens: It does, totally. It relates to the whole bill. I could have had it in an earlier section before you got into it, but I am tying it in here and it will all tie in to the amendment and what we are all about.

The people in Metropolitan Toronto have no idea what it is we are doing here. For the most part, they assume that Queen’s Park is going to keep running just fine.

I had a call this morning from someone in Metropolitan Toronto who found out it was too late for them to make a presentation in the time frame of last week, and now it is too late. We do not have time now, with this bill being considered in the House for third reading, hopefully today so we can get on with it.

The people of Toronto have no idea what is going to be happening to them next November 14 on municipal election day. The attendance at the polls in previous municipal elections is around 30 per cent. This time, because of the confusion, it could be even less.

What I see my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) trying to do is to try to bring some sense to the bill, because it is not all necessarily there right now.

What we are talking about here is a very important bill that affects over two million people. It is the creation of a new level of government. What we want to make sure is that there is no chance of any concern by any person --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: What’s so different? What’s so different from what is existing now?

Mr. Cousens: I think there are a number of things that are different.

One of the ones that really concerns me is that the only link between the new Metro government and the local governments is going to be the mayor. The model that I like best and one of the models that was presented previously in the other reports would have allowed the joint-seat option, where you had a person who is not only a member of the Metro government but is also a member of their own local council.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: So you like the status quo. That is what you’re saying.

Mr. Cousens: No. It is not the status quo all over. It is in Toronto, but I believe we are going to have a major problem, I say in response to the question that has been asked by the honourable minister. The problem we are going to have is a no man’s land and the failure of a local government and the Metro government to deal with common concerns of overlapping interests such as planning and parks, which are not just the prerogative of one or the other government. Both governments are going to have to interface and work together to resolve those concerns.

Right now, by having two separate governments, with the only link being the mayor, I believe and have reason to believe, through the representations that were made last week, that this is going to lead to problems, not unlike the problems that we had in Winnipeg with that type of government.

In the meantime, we are dealing with the amendments that have been tabled by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I understand we are going to vote on each one seriatim. I think that is what the member for Beaches-Woodbine has asked for, is that right?

Mr. Chairman: If you could ask that question at this point?

Mr. Cousens: I will ask on that point, yes.

Mr. Chairman: The tradition is that we vote as a block. I would have to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee in order to look at this point by point. When the vote comes along, I will ask for that commitment.

Mr. Cousens: I suggest you would be wise to do that. Certainly, clause 4(a)(i) is identical to the one in the government bill, so they would probably want to support that one. But they might have had a chance to rethink their position on some of the other amendments that the member for Beaches-Woodbine has made. So I would support consideration of that.

1610

As you are looking at Metro boundaries, we are seeing so much opportunity for confusion for the electorate. I sense that is the intention, that is what this motion will try to resolve, so that the people, when they are --

Mr. Black: Are you speaking against direct election? What are you saying?

Mr. Cousens: It depended on the option, though, because there were four different maps. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has already tried to teach you about how the different maps for Toronto are being set up.

Mr. Black: You and the member for Beaches-Woodbine are the only people confused. Everyone else understood.

Mr. Cousens: No, I am quite aware of it, but obviously this honourable member is not aware of what those maps were really trying to show. They could be very confusing to people by virtue of the way in which the wards would overlap. What the member for Beaches-Woodbine is trying to do is to bring some sense to it.

I am really surprised. Maybe the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) has some insights that he wants to offer to us, or maybe this is the chance to ask the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann). I am convinced there is going to be an opportunity for serious problems for the people in Metropolitan Toronto on a number of different fronts.

Let me just finish some of my comments, because we look forward to hearing what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs has to say on this.

The one concern that touches upon every politician is the danger of some form of gerrymandering. I have not sensed that as being something there is evidence of within Metropolitan Toronto, though I do feel that the intention behind the member for Beaches-Woodbine’s amendments is to try to get around some of that problem.

Our party has put forward another amendment to this bill which I will be placing shortly. Unfortunately, because of the way the bill has been drafted, it is very difficult to make this amendment right now. It could probably preclude the kinds of problems the member for Beaches-Woodbine is having with her amendment. It would be the creation of a Metropolitan Toronto election boundaries commission so that there is an independent group responsible for the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. This independent commission would operate in much the same way as the boundaries commission did for Ontario in the creation of new electoral districts that we went through in the election of September 10 and in much the same way as the electoral boundaries commissions operate for the federal government.

In the creation of a Metropolitan Toronto government, which this bill is going to enact in a very special way, giving it new powers and a whole new look, why not at the same time remove from anyone’s even possible perception that there would be a chance that someone would gerrymander the boundaries of his ward? That is one of the concerns I have heard the member for Beaches-Woodbine address, and I think all politicians agree -- especially when we are as concerned as we are about the next bill that we will be debating very shortly, conflict of interest -- the last thing you want to have is politicians having some sense of controlling their own destiny in that way. It is wrong, and I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine is trying to address that concern.

I am concerned that we are in the process of speeding through these changes for Metropolitan Toronto without having involved all the people of Metropolitan Toronto. We are railroading it through. The majority of this government has gone on in such a way that we had only 21 representations last week. Who knows how many more representations would have been made if people had known that the committee was meeting?

Fortunately, to show that the government members were listening, at least one of those representations had the effect of causing the committee, or the government members anyway, to bring forward an amendment that acknowledged at least one of the points that was made by one of those people who attended the meeting last week.

I think it was Bob Yuill who made those points by asking: “What happens when a mayor is unable to attend the Metro meetings for a month? Is there not some way in which we can have a substitute for the mayor in such circumstances, and for that substitute should we not include some change in the bill?” An amendment was made that allows for that substitution. I do not know whether the New Democratic Party supported that one or not. I know our party did, but I like the fact that through those public hearings we were able to gain at least one idea that affected the government and that was able to be implemented.

Had we listened to more people, were this bill not to be rushed through as it is now, I am convinced that the government members, the Liberal members in this House, maybe even the parliamentary assistant, who is so intransigent and so bent on pushing this bill through without any change -- this is his first chance for success at Queen’s Park, to be able to say, “I brought in Bill 29.” Even if it is flawed, even if it has mistakes in it, he is still going to have the sense of saying, “I carried it through for the minister.” We are really glad to see him in the House carrying on in an efficient way, as he did last week in committee.

We are dealing with a bill into which, if we could, we would like to put some common sense. What the member for Beaches-Woodbine is trying to do is to bring that about. The bill is a mistake in some ways and it is a good thing in others. It is good to see reform. It is good to see Metro government thrive. I am glad to see elected representation and the sense in which we are going to have some of those reforms be effected. But what about the electorate? How confusing is it going to be for people, who will not know who and where and what is being done by them? When I say “who,” there is going to be great confusion unless there is some sense brought to the ward boundaries within Metropolitan Toronto.

I have a number of questions for the parliamentary assistant, and maybe he will answer them automatically, in response to the presentation that was made earlier by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. On the overlap that takes place from one ward to the other, has the government had a chance in this early stage already to review the different recommendations on the boundaries that are coming through from the municipalities to see whether there are problems being created there that would otherwise be addressed by the amendments proposed by the member for Beaches-Woodbine?

I would also like to know why there was not more co-ordination, and this is something the member for Beaches-Woodbine has been concerned about. It has to do with the fact that this does not affect just councillors and aldermen; it also affects the school board trustees from both the public and separate systems. Why was there not some integration of both of those into one bill, or why was Bill 76 not brought forward? We are talking about some 45 different bills between when Bill 29 was presented and when the other one, for school boards, was brought forward.

Why was there not some working together of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Education so that there could be some linking and some integration of the whole problem portrayed, at least by the three trustees who came and made presentations to the committee last week?

If I have one concern, it is the confusion to the electorate. We want to encourage people to participate in democracy. We believe in democracy. If anyone is going to believe in it, it is the 129 members of this place. Ron Van Horne from London North is not here any more -- he got used to the kind of democracy in the Peterson government -- but the rest of us really understand what democracy is all about.

Mr. Ballinger: Give us a break, will you.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Durham-York said, “Give us a break.” He is going to get his break. The House sits only this week and then he has until April 5, when we come back.

I am concerned about the confusion that can exist for the people within Metro Toronto. Possibly, specifically, the parliamentary assistant could respond to that question, which is the number one question I have to raise: the confusion for the people of Metropolitan Toronto on this whole system. Maybe we could have some dialogue on that one.

Mr. Neumann: It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and speak to the amendment that has been proposed. First of all, I would like to say that the committee hearings last week were well attended and all committee members made a very positive contribution to the development of this bill as it emerged with several amendments.

I would also like to say that the hearings convinced me this bill had very broad support across Metropolitan Toronto. As an example, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto came to the committee and indicated that it was time to get on with it and press forward with these reforms. Shortly behind their presentation came the representation of the Labour Council of Metro Toronto, saying that it does not often agree with the board of trade but that this one is a good bill and it should proceed, that it represented basic reform in Metro Toronto.

1620

Dealing specifically with the amendments, I can assure members of the House assembled here as a committee of the whole that gerrymandering is not occurring. It is not occurring because the minister established clear procedures and guidelines to the municipalities in his correspondence, and the consultation process has been effective.

The flexibility that is provided within this bill for the interim wards that are to be established for this year’s municipal election permits the flexibility that is necessary. For example, this amendment that is put forward would not permit the flexibility which the city of Scarborough has put forward. All members agreed that its presentation to the committee made considerable sense. It is trying to develop a procedure whereby its existing 14 wards will fit within the six Metropolitan Toronto area wards. In doing so, some of the Metro Toronto wards will have two local wards and some will have three. It has selected, where there is a necessity to have three to have the smaller ones grouped, and where there are two to have larger ones grouped, and it still is within the guidelines established for representation by population. But it allows the city to maintain its local wards, given the flexibility of the bill; wards which it carefully drafted not that long ago and wards which took account of what areas of its municipality are experiencing population growth and are likely to continue to grow.

So the bill provides flexibility for this go-round. It also provides the guideline of the same number of area wards in each Metro ward for future reviews through the Ontario Municipal Board process.

So I believe the amendment is not necessary. The feedback we are getting from the various municipalities is that they can meet the guideline. In fact, one of the government amendments on the procedure and the reporting back from the municipalities once this bill is passed was to reduce that period from 60 days to 30 days, and this was supported very strongly by the municipalities because they feel they have made very good progress. They are working towards developing those wards and they have no difficulty meeting the 30 days that are now in the amended bill.

The bill is not flawed. The process is working well. There is flexibility and, in the future, the Ontario Municipal Board will be there as a final step for appeal if citizens do wish to take that approach.

I would like to point out that some comments have been made about the need for an independent boundaries commission, an election boundaries commission. I would like to point out that the comment was made that at the provincial and federal levels the elected members do not set their own ridings. That is not entirely true. I understand that while boundary commissions are established, they report to the House at all levels and the House has the final say. So the elected members are involved at the federal and provincial levels. There is nothing within existing legislation in Ontario that would prevent a local municipality, in reviewing its ward boundaries, from establishing an advisory committee of citizens, or its own commission, to work out those new boundaries and bring them to the council for recommendation.

Indeed, in the present legislation, which involves the Ontario Municipal Board, the application for ward boundary reviews does not need to come from the municipality. It can be initiated by a petition of citizens. So I believe that the present process has worked very well throughout Ontario, with the Ontario Municipal Board being the court of review for ward boundary changes, and that it will continue to work well.

I think what this government is saying is that we respect the local municipalities and their ability to tackle these issues. We see no need as legislators to step into the situation, as was indicated by the mover of the amendment. We believe the system is working well. The guidelines set out by the minister through the municipalities are being followed; if there is a need for review, the minister has indicated that he is open to hearing from anyone in the city who has a concern about the ward boundaries prior to sending it for approval through the order-in-council process.

The approval process at the municipal level is a public process. Public meetings have been held. Councils will be adopting the wards at public council meetings. Anyone who has a concern can at that point write a letter to the minister and express those concerns, and the minister will take them into consideration before sending these ward boundaries through the order-in-council approval process.

In conclusion, I do not believe this bill requires this amendment. I commend the member who moved it for the general principles stated, but I believe those principles are being followed. Definitely, the bill is long overdue and Metropolitan government reform is needed. It has been a good system of government, and this bill will make it even better.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to comment? Does the member for Beaches-Woodbine want to comment now?

Ms. Bryden: I wish to rebut. Unless there are other members who want to get into the debate first, I would like to reply to some of the statements by the parliamentary assistant.

First, though, I would like to commend the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) for his comments. I hope that indicates he will be supporting my amendment. Certainly he was very much aware of the issue of what was going on in some of the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto and of the need for stricter guidelines. We are trying to bring those concerns to the House, and I think he helped in making them clearer.

I would like to remind the parliamentary assistant that the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto likes the idea of direct election, and I think most people in the city of Toronto like the idea of direct election and of separating the representation on the Metropolitan council from the representation on the local councils; but I did not hear them express any approval for options B and C, which were brought forward in the city of Toronto. I think they supported the tightening of guidelines and the spelling out of guidelines which would prevent gerrymandering, because they know that the municipal councils they deal with should represent all points of view and should not become pro-developer councils, as we seem to have had happen in some municipalities and as particularly appears to be developing in the city of Toronto.

Second, when the parliamentary assistant mentioned that boundary commissions do have input from local members, it is an entirely different kind of input than I was talking about. Certainly boundary commissioners do not live in the area and do not always know the local circumstances, so you must have an opportunity for their proposals to be reviewed by local people.

We do have a very good process, I think, at both the federal and provincial levels for input from local members, but the final decision is still made by the boundary commissions after they hear the representations from the local members. In some cases they accept the representations, in others they do not.

This is the kind of boundary commission we need, and it should be province-wide in order to be truly independent. The parliamentary assistant suggests that any local municipality can set up its own independent commission. I submit that if any local council appoints a boundary commission, it cannot possibly be an independent commission. They all have their own conflict of interest as to what kind of boundaries they want, and therefore they are likely to choose members of that so-called independent commission who will support their viewpoint -- that is, the viewpoint of the majority on council.

That is not an answer. It is a province-wide boundary commission that we hope the minister will bring in after the 1988 election to replace the Ontario Municipal Board. A lot of deputations did say they thought the OMB was the wrong instrument for settling boundary disputes.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Education, in his new Bill 76 affecting trustee representation across the province, does not provide in that bill for an appeal to the OMB on boundary choices but sets up an appeal to a judge. Obviously, the Minister of Education is not convinced of the impartiality of the OMB as regards electoral boundaries or of its competency in that field. That is another reason why I urge the minister and the government to consider an independent boundary commission.

1630

Regarding the point he raised about the fact that my guidelines would not fit the municipality of Scarborough: until we had the hearings we did not know what the proposals were from the six various municipalities. We still do not know entirely because some of them have not finalized them yet, but it appeared from the evidence we got that my guidelines would fit all of the six municipalities except possibly Scarborough.

We were prepared in the committee to consider an exception for Scarborough because of its state of growth at the moment; perhaps we could not strictly bring it under the guidelines. Scarborough is the fastest growing municipality in this area; it has a number of areas that are growing more rapidly than others. Some of its wards may need revising in the future, but the point the council made was that it was not ready at the moment to revise those boundaries. They would prefer to go into the new Metropolitan setup with their existing wards and somehow fit them into the Metro wards; but as they have only been given six Metro wards and have 14 area wards, it is rather difficult to fit 14 into six on an equal basis. You have to have different numbers of area wards.

We recognized that in the committee and suggested that perhaps there should be an exception in the legislation for them, with the hope that a year from now they would revise their boundaries and follow the guidelines of having the area wards a whole number multiple of the Metro wards. The Liberal members on the committee voted against that amendment too, as well as the Conservatives. The suggestion that Scarborough needs special treatment was rejected by the Liberal members.

If there is a special case for Scarborough, and I have indicated some of the reasons why there may be, the minister and the cabinet still have the power to make special exceptions. It is not a good principle to have the exceptions written into the legislation, because it then violates the principles we are trying to establish that should be the guidelines.

The interesting thing is that the guidelines in the proposed clause 152b(2)(b) of the bill actually accept my second guideline, subclause 5a(4)(a)(ii) of my amendment; that is, that “the number of local wards in each area municipality that is equal to or a multiple in whole numbers of the number of Metropolitan wards in that area municipality...” shall be recommended.

In the bill, the minister is recommending adoption of my subclause 5a(4)(a)(ii) and sub-clause 5a(4)(a)(i) is already in the bill, but he is recommending it only after 1988. He wants the power not to follow that principle in subclause 5a(4)(a)(ii) now. I say leave it up to the cabinet and the minister to make any exception, but accept the principle, as he is suggesting it for the future.

Those are reasons we should still adopt my guidelines, which will make it much stricter that we do seek our objectives of representation by population and a more equitable representation in all Metro wards, so that we get the same number of area wards, we get them within the Metro boundaries, and we do not have different numbers of area wards in Metro wards unless the cabinet decides it is warranted in a special situation.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to hear the reply by the parliamentary assistant to the concerns that were raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, because I might otherwise just repeat some of the ones she has raised.

Mr. Neumann: I believe the points made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine are interesting points, but we believe they are already covered off in the bill. The Scarborough proposal does not need an exception, because it is in keeping with the guidelines established by the minister. While future reviews of wards would require that each Metro ward have an equal number of local wards within a given municipality, there is provision within the existing, present process for the flexibility desired by Scarborough.

In reviewing the amendment, subclauses 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii) and clauses 4(c) and 4(d), I believe, are all currently provided basically in the bill. The only substantive change that is recommended is clause 4(b), which says, “shall take into account the principle of representation by population, the existence of local boundaries and communities and any patterns of future growth.” While this wording is not in the bill, there were guidelines sent to the municipalities by the minister, and it is our belief, in looking at the proposals that have been generated to this point, that the local municipalities are taking into consideration these general principles.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant, if the guidelines were sent out to all the municipalities -- I do not know whether they were sent to the school boards -- what is the objection to putting them in the bill and having them there so that if there are any challenges in future the people know on what basis the minister is making his recommendations? That is question number one.

The second question I would like him to answer is that he has not indicated to us, if he can tell us, what the date is that the election expenses bill will be introduced in this House, because without that the people who will be participating in elections in the Metro area, both school board and municipal, will have no idea what size of contributions they can accept.

Without that sort of legislation getting into effect very quickly, I am sure there are going to be many people who will wish to get their contributions in beforehand without having to disclose them. Certainly it has been happening; apparently many developers have been sending in contributions. Those people will be rushing to get their contributions in before that legislation gets into effect and before there is any ceiling on what they can give, and that is a very serious situation in this city. The press has already revealed that a great deal of this is already going on and that the war chests of the incumbents are being built up by large donations from developers. This government simply is abdicating its responsibilities for democracy in this area if it does not bring in legislation to stop that as soon as possible -- really, before the 1988 campaign gets going.

My third question that he has not answered is whether he has consulted the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or other legal people as to whether the Minister of Municipal Affairs really has the power to approve the school board boundaries, since the school boards are not even mentioned in the legislation. I hope the Attorney General might also give us an opinion as to whether the powers of the Minister of Municipal Affairs can extend to making rules for the school boards without their even being mentioned in the legislation. It says he shall prescribe boundaries for the municipalities. It does not say anything about prescribing boundaries for the school boards.

Mr. Neumann: With regard to the first question about the principles outlined in the amendment, it is our belief that this is not necessary. It is our view that the legislation should not encumber the decision-making at the local level. We believe in local governments and we have confidence in their abilities. The minister has sent out guidelines to the municipalities that they should keep within the principles of representation by population. Everything we heard at the committee indicates that the municipalities are taking this seriously and have listened to citizens along the way.

1640

On the second point, with regard to education, the committee in its hearings last week heard that the election of trustees will take place within the boundaries established by the municipalities. What remains to be determined is how many trustees will be elected in each local ward.

Local wards will be used for the election of trustees, so there is no need to mention this specifically in the bill. Once the enumeration is done and the distribution of public and separate school supporters -- who, as we were told at the committee, do not distribute themselves conveniently evenly through the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto--is determined, there will then have to be some decision made, whether wards would be combined or whether some individual wards might have one trustee and some might have two or more, to try to keep the trustee elections as close as possible to representation by population.

I have forgotten the third point the member made.

Ms. Bryden: Whether the legislation should come forward with my amendments, which do not fit the municipality of Scarborough but allow the exceptions to be made if the cabinet considers them necessary through the process of approval by the minister and the cabinet rather than distorting the legislation and permitting gerrymandering, as it does at present, in order to accommodate the municipality of Scarborough, which may have special problems.

Mr. Neumann: On the Scarborough point, I already mentioned that flexibility is there within the bill. The bill does not need an amendment. But there was another point the member raised and that was with respect to another bill which the minister will be tabling in the House. He did make a statement to this House on the general principle and outline of that bill on municipal election reform across Ontario. I think it is a very appropriate question for the member to ask, and probably the most appropriate place to ask it would be in question period when the minister is present. I understand, however, that it is very close to being finalized.

Ms. Bryden: I have just one other question of the parliamentary assistant. Can he tell us whether there is any work being done on the proposal to have a municipal tax rebate for electors who donate to political parties, or are representations being made to the federal and provincial governments to provide a tax rebate similar to what electors at those levels receive? That is also part of the puzzle. All the speeches on second reading indicated that those parts of the jigsaw puzzle really must be known before we are in a position to bring in true reform for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Neumann: The government is well aware that there are several pieces of legislation that need to be completed and finalized by this Legislature for the smooth running of municipal elections this fall. It is going to be a challenging task, but it is achievable. What we are dealing with here today is the reform of Metropolitan Toronto government. The other matters being raised are province-wide issues, which are being addressed by the government.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to get some clarification, if I could, from the parliamentary assistant. Some concerns came out of the delegations that made representations to our committee last week.

By the way, I did not have a chance to compliment the chairman of the committee. I think she did an outstanding job and really got along with everybody very well. It is worth while noting that the member for Durham West (Mrs. Stoner) did not treat us any differently from the Liberal members. That does not mean to say she will get a compliment tomorrow or the next day, but I think it is important to recognize that the committee did work well together, even though we do not agree with the legislation and with the position the government is taking. I think that is also an indication that parliament can still work, even with this horrible majority we are dealing with and even though they have just used that big hammer to push it through.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine has raised a number of points and she has put in her reasoned amendment the kind of concerns that people have for Metropolitan Toronto, for the municipality of Toronto in particular, where they have a concern that they live in one area and their ward alderman is going to be going in one direction and their Metro alderman totally in another. What she is trying to do with this amendment is that the number of local wards in each area municipality shall be a single member ward, clause 5a(4)(c).

Can the parliamentary assistant indicate in this House that this is not going to happen, that what is going to be coming in to the minister for his final review is really going to be very plain and straightforward and will not be confusing to the electorate? Second, could he also indicate to the House the time frame in which all the key decisions will be made? We had the minister make a commitment last week in committee. I would like to have that on record in Hansard right now. Third and finally, does he see any changes being made by the minister to the ward boundary recommendations that come from the different municipalities?

Mr. Neumann: First, the minister indicated to the committee that he would be abiding by the timetable as outlined, 30 days for official response from the municipalities. He anticipated that very shortly after receiving all these responses he would be acting on recommending approval through the order-in-council process. This would mean the order in council should go through around the end of March. I believe that was the answer the minister gave.

The procedure has been a good one. I believe there has been full consultation by the municipalities of all of the citizens who have concerns. Any citizens who have further concerns after their municipalities have approved the wards have the opportunity of corresponding with the minister and indicating those concerns and he will be taking those into consideration.

Mr. Cousens: The other question I wanted to have the parliamentary assistant answer dealt with the confusion of the electorate over the way the ward boundaries were going. One thing the amendment of the member for Beaches-Woodbine would do is have the wards all composite of a Metro boundary. Could he respond to that? Is he saying that is not a problem at all with the recommendations coming forward? Is the minister going to impose some of the thinking that has gone into these amendments or is he going to have another set of criteria? In fact, maybe the parliamentary assistant could indicate to the House what the criteria are that his ministry will be following in the approval of the boundaries for the wards in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Neumann: I indicated that the minister had sent out letters to the various municipalities requesting response and giving some direction. The minister indicated to the committee that he would be willing to consider suggestions and alternatives to those proposed by the municipalities. I assume he would make changes if he felt they were not in keeping with the general principles of representation by population, neighbourhoods and so on.

With respect to confusion, I do not believe there is any confusion. I believe the bill is very clear. It states exactly how many Metro wards there will be in each municipality. It states that these Metro wards will be divided into area wards for the local municipalities, that it is their decision how to structure that initially. These will all be single-member wards. The only double- or triple-member wards that could occur conceivably will be later on with respect to school board elections if it is deemed there is a different kind of population distribution across Metropolitan Toronto or within a municipality of public versus separate school electors. It may be necessary to do some rearranging and it may be necessary to have some double-member school board wards; but with respect to the municipal level they will all be single-member wards, and I do not really see the need for this amendment.

1650

Mrs. Stoner: I would like to thank the member for Markham for his kind comments on the chairmanship of the committee, but I would also like to respond to the points he made twice in the House today about the notification of the hearings of the committee.

The points I would like to make are that the members of the subcommittee of the standing committee on general government were polled as to whether or not they thought advertising was appropriate or whether there should be other methods of notification. On that polling, the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Owen), the member for Beaches-Woodbine and myself agreed that, in fact, letters of notice to individuals and organizations was the appropriate way to go. The clerk had expressed concern that advertising was not, in fact, getting the kinds of responses in other committees that they hoped it would.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) was asked the question and asked to respond to the clerk of the committee if he had any objection to not advertising and the clerk did not hear from him.

The committee then forwarded --

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: how can the member say he was polled if she never heard from him?

Mrs. Stoner: No, I am sorry. The member for Markham is incorrect about what I stated. I said the members of the committee were polled, that is the members for Simcoe Centre, Beaches-Woodbine and myself of the four on the subcommittee. The other member, the member for Simcoe East, we were not able to reach, and the clerk left a message with him to get back to us, but we still had three out of the four members of the committee agreeing that advertising was not the appropriate means and that we should go with notification.

We then went with press releases to all of the Metro papers. We notified hundreds of individuals and representatives of Metro ratepayers’ associations, members of councils and school boards and interested organizations such as the labour council and the board of trade.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to insert those points of information.

Ms. Bryden: I would also like to insert the point of information that the committee did recommend that -- at least it was put before the committee -- in future, advertising of all committees should be considered essential and the decision not to advertise should have to be made by the whole committee. But that is something for future consideration of other committees as well as the standing committee on general government, because there was some confusion about whether the decision on the advertising had been put to the whole committee or to enough people. I certainly believe that all committees which are dealing with an important section affecting 2.2 million electors -- that is the population anyway -- should advertise their hearings. We are not debating the committee’s procedure right now.

Mr. Chairman: You are quite correct.

Ms. Bryden: I did want to say that I am very pleased the parliamentary assistant has, I think for the first time, clarified for all the members here that there will be no difference between the municipal wards and the school board wards established in any part of Metropolitan Toronto. I do not think that was ever really clarified in the committee, partly because, I guess, the proposals from the school boards had not come in and were still being expected after the committee was sitting. So I think that great confusion that exists among most trustees and school board electors remained during all the committee hearings and up until this day when the parliamentary assistant has said that is the principle.

I would like to ask whether the Minister of Education, who is here I believe, would like to comment on whether he is agreeable to his having no veto on the proposals for the school boards, because they may not work too well with the difference in representation of the different kinds of school board electors. Does he care to make a comment on his role in the process or is he quite content to let the Minister of Municipal Affairs make all the decisions?

Hon. Mr. Scott: He’s not here.

Ms. Bryden: I thought he was here. He was here.

Mr. Chairman: Do members wish to comment? If not, the member for Markham.

Mr. Cousens: The parliamentary assistant did not answer one of the questions I had previously asked him, and that is what are the criteria that he or the minister or staff will be using to determine whether or not the boundary recommendations of the six different municipalities --

Mr. Dietsch: Cousens’ rules.

Mr. Cousens: I am anxious to know. The question is, I believe, a valid one. The minister will get the recommendations from the different municipalities within 30 days of when this receives royal assent. Then there will be a certain amount of time for his staff to review it. He will probably have some of them before that when the municipalities finish them earlier, and I am satisfied that they have made a commitment that they are going to have them to you. I am concerned about the criteria that the ministry is going to be following during that period of time.

I have another question that comes out of it, and that is: if a municipality is faced with changes that the minister makes arbitrarily because of the recommendations that are made, what recourse does it have at that time?

Mr. Neumann: The criteria which the minister will follow will no doubt be the one outlined to the municipalities in his letter to them; to keep as close as possible to representation by population and not vary more than 25 per cent from the average, which for the Metro wards is 75,000 population.

Other than that, I would think that the minister would be strongly guided by the decisions of the local municipalities, which, having listened to the public and held public hearings and gathered all the input, have made their decisions. We respect the local decision-making of the municipalities.

On the other hand, the minister will be using common sense and good judgement to review the recommendations of the municipalities. If there is some glaring problem with respect to neighbourhoods or boundaries, barriers within the wards, I am sure citizens who have a concern will be pointing this out to the minister once it is clear what recommendations they are presenting.

I believe that things are progressing well. I might also add that there has been ongoing dialogue between the staff of the ministry and the key staff in the municipalities throughout this process, from November to the present time. So when the minister does finally get the recommended boundaries from the different municipalities, it should not be a surprise to him.

Mr. Cousens: Well, I did ask the question of the appeal. Should the minister change any of those recommendations by councils, which they are working on-in future legislation you will have the Ontario Municipal Board as an appeal mechanism that people can go through. With this legislation it is going to become very final, with the one or two criteria that the parliamentary assistant gave.

Are there not other criteria in this amendment that could be part of the thinking the minister has? The member has read them just as easily as I do. I do not want to take the time of the House, but are they not also part of it?

The second part of the question I asked had to do with the appeal should the minister change any of the recommendations. Otherwise, what the member for Brantford is saying is that there will be no changes; but if there are changes, I want to know how those councils are going to deal with them.

We are talking about a bill that is being rushed through the Legislature. If we were to have the time spent on this that there should be, there would be public hearings, there would be far more opportunity for those councils to get back.

I would also like to comment on the point that was made by the chairman. I do not believe that the member for the Progressive Conservative Party, the member for Simcoe East, responded in the affirmative to go without advertising. He is satisfied that he does not remember that. So there is a sense there in which our point still stands. If you are going to have public committees, public hearings, then you had better advertise. Because this was not advertised, it was not very public. That is my point, it is still my point and it is still valid.

I would like to go back to the parliamentary assistant and get his answer on the criteria and on the process that will be followed should the minister start making changes. We are talking about the potential for changes being made. I do not have the confidence in this government that the parliamentary assistant has. That is why we are here.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That’s why we’re here.

Mr. Cousens: Yes, but come on; let us make sure there is something written down there to protect the people of Metropolitan Toronto who may not like what the government is going to do. Right now, the way this bill stands, there is nothing we can do about it, except today we can.

1700

Mr. Neumann: I think the answer is self-evident. The member knows the answer to the question, I am sure, because being a long-standing member of this Legislature, he is aware of the order-in-council process which is followed. There is no appeal. The bill is structured so the minister is the final check, through the order-in-council process. But having said that, I am sure that before making any changes, the minister would be consulting at a staff level, as has been the case all along.

I think what the member is really perhaps trying to do is to suggest there be appeal after appeal, extending the process so that, as he has indicated in committee, this bill cannot be implemented for this fall’s municipal election and is delayed to 1991, which is the agenda he is on.

The intent of this government is to proceed with due, careful consideration, but proceed for implementation this fall and get Metro Toronto reform on the rails, get it moving forward, so that the people of this important area within our province -- Metropolitan Toronto -- will not only have good government but also have excellent government and be able, for the first time, to directly elect their Metro councillors, who will then be able to look more carefully at area-wide concerns across the whole of Metropolitan Toronto, which is the intent of this bill.

Mr. Cousens: The member knows you do not try to read intent into another member’s words. The honourable parliamentary assistant was not as honourable in his comments. You just do not interpret another person’s intent. That is not within the procedures of this House. You can do it out in the wings, but as far as in here --

As far as our party is concerned, we are very supportive of changes being made to Metropolitan Toronto government. I am also quite prepared to tell the government -- knowing that with its great majority it is going to do it anyway -- that what I, as the critic for this concern, want to make sure happens is that there be as much public input as possible, that the public understands what is being done and that what is done is correct and right for Metropolitan Toronto, for all that area.

I have to tell the government it is delinquent in so many areas. One of the ones has to do with --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Don’t read intent into what we do.

Mr. Cousens: It is. It has to do with the way the boundaries are being set up. The government is leaving the politicians open to suspicion, the perception that maybe there have been some games going on. That is why the member for Beaches-Woodbine has brought in this amendment. That is why I have an amendment to make shortly after this, on the proposal to establish a boundaries commission. I believe in that process. It works for this place. It has even got a seat for the Attorney General. It carved it out. He did not gerrymander it; he earned it. I want to make sure there is that sense of removal from it.

Mr. Harris: He did not.

Mr. Cousens: Well, he might have earned it. I do not want to give him any compliments. The fact is he is a friend and I want to be nice in this new spirit.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Don’t tell Susan Fish your view of that. She would be very upset. She was going to vote for you for leader before she heard that.

Mr. Cousens: You never know how people will vote.

What I want to do is make sure the people in Metropolitan Toronto understand the changes that are going on around them. We are making the changes almost in a vacuum because we have not really heard what they have to say.

I think what we have finally heard now from the parliamentary assistant is that whatever happens will be the minister’s decision and will fall on his shoulders. We have also heard it said that the decision -- and just so that is in the record, and he has now put it in -- by the end of March, those who will be wanting to run for public office will then know from then on that: “The boundaries are in place. Here is what we are having. This is what you are running for, local alderman or for Metropolitan council.”

I am not satisfied that the answers have been as clear as I wanted them but I will leave it because we have other amendments to be made.

Ms. Bryden: I do want to give my friend the member for Markham his opportunity to move his amendment, so I just have one final comment. I am disappointed that the minister spent so little time with the committee. I think he came for one hour in the four days we sat. Then I was very disappointed when I read in the Toronto Star, on the day after the committee had passed the bill and recommended it come to this House, that Gary Sands, the executive assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs said to the press, if the quote is correct, “It is a fait accompli, really.” In other words, the bill has been passed by the committee.

Mr. Cousens: Why do you bother having the Legislature back?

Ms. Bryden: Yes. Apparently what this House does today is of no interest after that. I think the government is in danger of being accused of Big Brotherism, which we used to say the previous government did too much in running municipal affairs. They should be ready to listen to the committee and not necessarily to say, once the Liberal majority on the committee has voted all the amendments down there, that it is a fait accompli.

We came here today with an amendment to show that it should not be a fait accompli and that there should be some revision of the rules following the hearings of the committee. I urge members to accept these amendments and spell out the guidelines so that it does not appear to be an act of Big Brotherism by the government to decide what is good for Metro Toronto.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to comment?

Mr. Cousens: Can we take it item by item, subclause 5a(4)(a)(i) and then 5(4)(a)(ii)?

Mr. Chairman: That is what I am about to propose, if there are no other members who want to comment. Normally, we would vote on this in one block. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has requested that we vote in four separate blocks, (a), (b), (c) and (d). I would need the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in this way. Do I have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee that clause 5a(4)(a) carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Shall clause 5a(4)(b) carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Shall clause 5a(4)(c) carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Shall clause 5a(4)(d) carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Cousens: I have another amendment to section 5b of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that section 5b of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“5b(1) A commission to be known as the Metropolitan Toronto Municipal Boundary Commission is hereby established.

“(2) The commission shall consist of such persons as may be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“(3) The commission shall hold public meetings to consider whether it is in the best interest of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan area that, in each local ward, one person be elected to the council or the area municipality and one person be elected to both the council of the area municipality and the Metropolitan council.

“(4) If the commission determines that it is in the best interest of the inhabitants of the Metropolitan area that the election structure set out in section 3 be established, the commission may by order require the regular elections commencing in 1991 be conducted on that basis.

1710

“(5) In an order made under subsection (4), the commission may divide, redivide or alter the boundaries of any or all of the Metropolitan wards or local wards.

“(6) Unless varied by order of the commission, this act applies, with necessary modifications, to the conduct of regular elections held under the Municipal Elections Act.

Mr. Cousens: Copies have been circulated, and the other honourable members have them.

Mr. Chairman: Do members wish to debate this?

Mr. Cousens: There are really two points that we are trying to make in this amendment. One is that there be a Metro Toronto municipal boundary commission, as per the federal and provincial governments. I briefly alluded to that earlier.

The intent of such an independent committee would be that there would be the holding of public hearings. There would be some adjudication of ward boundaries. It would remove the involvement of politicians’ own interests, although they would have an opportunity to make representations. They could make their views known, and although at the end they could come back and give final ratification to this, it puts the guidance where it should be.

In fact, what this government is trying to do is just say: “We don’t have any responsibility any more. We are just going to let the municipalities and everybody do what they want.”

Sunday shopping is an example. This province is just going to throw it at the municipalities and let them do what they want. We all know what is going to happen. It is a chance for this government to say, “Whew, we got rid of that issue and we have now thrown it outside.” It is going to backfire.

If you were in this House today and listened to the number of petitions which were made -- for example, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams). I sat here with awe as he read with such intent the petition from his people in Peterborough, who say, “Do not open up Sundays.” He is getting his own people telling him that, and then he is coming into the House and saying: “Look, we are not going to do it. We are just going to pass it back to the town council in Peterborough to decide.” Where does he come out on that one?

Interjections.

Mr. Reycraft: We want to let them decide.

Mr. Cousens: The point is, and I am making the point as it pertains to this bill, this government --

Mr. Dietsch: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: What part of this bill is in reference to Sunday shopping? I thought we were talking about the Metropolitan Toronto Act, not Sunday shopping.

Mr. Cousens: I am saying it is the same kind of action that the government is taking with this bill as it is doing with Sunday shopping. It is a total abdication of responsibility. This government is not prepared --

lnterjections.

Mr. Cousens: I think the people of Metropolitan Toronto are about to hear from the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert). He is sitting over there foaming. I have never heard him even say a word for a while.

Mr. Faubert: You bet. You keep that up.

Mr. Cousens: He did ask a good question earlier today. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere wants to participate in this, and I will look forward to hearing what he has to say on whether or not he agrees with the principle that the government should be in charge, that the government is responsible for something.

Mr. Faubert: I support the bill.

Mr. Cousens: That is a very easy statement, and I am glad the member does. I do not support this part of the bill.

Mr. Faubert: We know that. We heard you.

Mr. Cousens: What I am trying to do is bring forward a reasonable amendment that says that this province is going to establish a boundaries commission that is going to be responsible for boundaries.

I think we are concerned that the people of Metropolitan Toronto be involved in the development of those boundaries for wards and for Metro councillor seats. At this point there is no way in which they are involved unless it just sort of happens.

I happen to think we have a very responsible group of governments in and around Metropolitan Toronto. I am satisfied that they have had a very open process and they have involved many people in the communities. I thought North York was exemplary in the way it had public meetings. I heard as well that Scarborough even had public meetings. I think that was a process that went through all the Metro areas.

But may I suggest, why do the politicians not take one step back from the design and development of their own boundaries? We do not do it in Ontario. The federal politicians do not do it any more. It has to do with the sense of, “Hey, if we get involved in the design of those boundaries, might we not be thinking of our own interests ahead of those of the public at large?” Many of the representations that were made by delegations last week at our hearings in the standing committee on general government were in support of the idea of a boundaries commission. Why does he not do it? The first phase of this amendment is calling for such an independent commission to be established.

I am sorry that the second part of that amendment is as long as it is, but legal counsel suggested that it be in that section of the bill that we include amendments pertaining to the joint seat responsibility.

There are a number of points that I would like to make on this, and it has to do with the overlapping responsibility that exists between the local municipality and the Metro government, because there are a number of areas in which both levels of government are going to be involved. When we have a member sitting on the local council who becomes totally aware and cognizant of the local council concerns, then that same person goes to Metro council, having sat through committee hearings, having listened to what has gone on in the local council, and carries forward at the Metro level that same sense of concern. That is the system the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) would be quite aware of because that is the kind of government he has been used to within Toronto and Metro.

To me, there is a model there that permits and encourages dialogue and co-operation between those two levels of government. What we are going to have now is two separate bodies, the only link between the two levels of government being the mayor. The mayor will become the constant between the local council and the Metro government.

I am saying that is a concern. If the mayor is not a good communicator, if the mayor does not want to get involved in things, if the mayor just does his own thing without good dialogue, it is going to be an awful lot for the mayor. Why not allow all members of Metro council to be members of the local council? That is what this amendment calls for.

This amendment is consistent with the recommendation that came out of the report, Metropolitan Toronto: A Framework for the Future, by the Robarts commission in June 1977. One of the recommendations that was made there, if I can just read it into the record, comes from page 54 of that report: “In addition, the commission proposes that the directly elected Metro councillors be full members of local councils to provide liaison between the two bodies. They should not be eligible for local executive or standing committee membership.” The key thing is that they be full members of local council.

The reason that becomes an important issue is the overlapping concerns that exist between the two councils. I have a list of the areas that are on both sides of the issue, where we have got both a Metro issue and a local issue. When we have got the two of them, what we are really talking about is the different levels that exist. We should have the chance, for instance, for planning. Planning is not just a Metro issue, it is a local issue. Specifically, we will have areas in which Metro and local councillors can be co-ordinating their own concerns for their area.

Parks is another area where it is not just local, it is Metro. Are we going to end up having a no man’s land? Are we going to end up having a war zone between Metro council and the local councils? Metro council is going to say, “No more development this way.” Are they going to have the total say? What happens to the local council then?

I am concerned about the dialogue that would take place. When they have to come back into council and be responsible to the local councillors, there will be a better sense of knowing what they are doing and sharing.

I believe this amendment is an important amendment. I believe it makes politics work because it forces communication between the two levels of government. I support a directly elected Metro government, and I think the moves we are making in this bill are positive in that sense.

I think that very few people in our whole society realize how hardworking our municipal councillors and our Metro councillors are. They are the dedicated people in this province. They put in long hours and they are concerned about their communities. It is the grass roots having a representative at a local level. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere would not be here had he not been very effective and good at the local level, and also at the Metro level.

But the fact is that that linking which comes together between the local council and the Metro council is essential. Let us not play it down. Are we going to end up having the same kind of problems that we as a Legislature have between ourselves and the federal government? We could have, when you start having the same kind of distance between the Metro and the local governments. Maybe what they will have to do is -- if the mayor is not sufficiently strong, there should be all of them involved in this process. That is what our amendment tries to do.

1720

I would like to see this carry. The members of the government have had a chance to rethink their position. They have had a chance to hear what I had to say and I --

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is not the same as rethinking our position.

Mr. Cousens: I just thought it might be helpful. This, to me, is an approach that will make Metro work. I know that when Winnipeg had its two-tier approach, it did not work. There is a concern by many people that this new approach to government in Metro Toronto is fraught with the possibility of failure.

I would ask that the parliamentary assistant support this amendment. I would be very pleased to give him all the credit, should it carry, because it would show the leadership he is capable of giving, and probably once did give in Brantford.

Ms. Bryden: We agree with the member for Markham on the need for an independent boundary commission, but I am afraid I have to part company with him on setting one up just for Metropolitan Toronto and delaying the electoral reform for direct election until 1991 while we do that.

I also have to disagree with him on the solution for deciding on the areas where there is joint jurisdiction: the solution of having councillors elected with dual jobs, on the Metro council and on the local municipality. We have tried that for the last three years and it has not worked. What we really need is a reform of the jurisdiction of the two areas to clarify it and to enable each council to deal with the problems that are becoming very important in this area, problems such as waste management, planning and zoning where there is joint jurisdiction, and transportation, which is becoming crucial in this area.

It is the division of boundaries that is the real problem, and I think that is the next step the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be looking at. He should not consider this the be-all and end-all of reforming Metropolitan government, because we know there are a lot of problems not being dealt with in the Metro region, and that is the way he should be going. I hope that would happen next year, that there will be perhaps a commission to study the division of powers with representatives from both levels of government: that is, the Metro region and the local area municipalities.

In the meantime, I still think the minister should be looking at a provincial boundaries commission right after 1988 and get it in place for any boundary changes after 1988. It should be available to all municipalities across the province and it should follow the patterns of the federal and provincial boundary commissions, with full public input and opportunity for objections. I am afraid this particular amendment is not going to solve either of those problems, the lack of an independent commission and lack of co-ordination between the two levels of government.

Because we have not had time to set up a proper electoral boundary commission, as I pointed out earlier, the responsibility is on us in this House today to make sure that there are strict enough guidelines and criteria to guide the minister and the cabinet when they have to approve the 1988 boundary changes. This is why I think it is crucial to adopt some amendments today that make those guidelines much stricter, and not just leave it entirely up to the top-heavy majority over there to decide what is good for Metropolitan Toronto. Today we can decide what is good for it according to the criteria that we did debate in those amendments. I am sorry the House has rejected them and left it to the steamroller majority over there to make all the decisions as to what is good for Metropolitan Toronto in 1988.

I congratulate the member for Markham on bringing forward his plea for an independent boundary commission, but I am afraid I cannot support his amendment.

Mr. Neumann: I would like to make a few comments. First, I would like to point out that the minister who represents the sensitive majority in this House will be taking into consideration a balanced representation by population, geographic factors, population trends and the preservation of neighbourhoods and communities. Indeed, these criteria were laid out in his letter to the municipalities and they have been aware of these criteria for some time.

The procedure for establishing boundaries for the 1988 municipal election is clear. The implementation is well under way and should not be a problem, as we have indicated. With respect to the ongoing process, the recommendation of establishing an independent boundaries commission is an interesting one. It purports to place the procedure on a parallel with the federal and provincial one and thereby develop some objectivity to the process.

I would point out that in Ontario the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission, which reviews electoral boundaries, not only asks members of the Legislature for input at the start of the process, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has pointed out, but when it has done its review, presents its recommendations to this Legislature, and the elected members of the Legislature make the decision. The most recent decision was made as an amendment in 1986 to the Representation Act. So the members of the Legislature are involved in setting the boundaries for elections in this province.

This is no different from the municipal level at the present time, except that a citizen can appeal the municipal decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, an independent body. The municipal board has been handling this for years. It is established to handle it, unlike the comment that was made that it is not established to handle it. It has been doing it for years, and doing it well.

So at the municipal level there is more involvement of citizens than at the provincial level, because citizens can initiate a review of ward boundaries by petition. It does not have to start as an application from the municipality. There is nothing to prevent municipalities from establishing their own boundary commissions or their own advisory committees of citizens to provide input and recommendations to the council before the council makes a decision, in the same way this Legislature has chosen to do with the boundaries commission.

We believe in delegating responsibility to the municipalities. We believe that municipalities are quite capable of handling that responsibility. We respect the municipalities of this province, and it is on that basis that we feel confident in the process which is outlined in this bill and which is outlined for the entire province of Ontario through the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Cousens: It is obvious that the amendment is not going to carry, and I accept that that is the decision of the government. May I just then ask this question?

I still believe there is a great deal of support by the electorate at large for an independent Metropolitan Toronto election boundaries commission. I am sorry it cannot happen. I also accept the reality of the time frame in which we are now operating for the 1988 elections. I think there will be an opportunity, if it is possible, to bring through a review following this year’s municipal elections to bring that into effect. I think it has implications beyond Metropolitan Toronto and across Ontario.

I think politicians would be relieved to have some sense of removing themselves from those decisions of selecting their own boundaries. I personally, as a provincial politician, thought that our election commission that went through our boundaries did an excellent job.

I think it cleans up the process. It removes the accusations, whether true or not, that there is a chance someone could be gerrymandering. I do not like to see this whole business. Politicians have a bad enough reputation as it is, but when we are involved in choosing our own boundaries -- some councils may not have independent groups helping them decide that -- an independent election commission can help with that process. That is the kind of guidance that can come down from the province to help make it a better system.

1730

I have one question I would like to ask of the parliamentary assistant. It is a practical situation that can exist between the city of Toronto and the Metro government on planning. Suppose a problem develops between the two levels of government, and I think you are going to see a large number of problems evolve over the next very short period of time. Suppose the city of Toronto wants a certain kind of development on the waterfront within its general area, makes presentations for it and the Metro government disagrees with it and votes it down. We then reach the traditional impasse of the two levels of government in a form of disagreement. How are those disagreements going to be worked out between the two levels of government when the members of the Metro government, except for the mayors, are not members of the local government?

Mr. Neumann: While I do not believe the question is pertinent to the amendment which is before the committee, I will answer it briefly because I realize it is probably going to be asked later if I do not deal with it now. We have every confidence that municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto are quite capable of adjusting to the new system that is proposed in this bill. Lines of communication are established through the mayors and will be established, I am sure, at the staff level and among the elected members in the various wards. We have confidence they will do their best to make sure this system does work and does work well.

Mr. Cousens: I believe part of the amendment is asking for the joint seat option. The first part of it includes the joint seats, so the Metro councillor is also a local councillor. That is why I believe that if our amendment were to carry with the intention that local councillors are also Metro councillors, there will be a better opportunity for dialogue and working out the issues among themselves. That is why I asked the question of the parliamentary assistant.

That is really the area in which we face very serious questions for the future of Metropolitan Toronto government. It works when people want to make it work. Regional government has worked in some municipalities and it has not worked as well in others. I happen to believe that regional government in York region has worked extremely well. I sense that it worked well in Mississauga, but I know that in Hamilton-Wentworth there have been some other concerns that have come up.

It starts with the people. It starts with the will of those who want to make it go. I want to see it work and I know our party wants to see it work. I think the people of Metro Toronto will be the most chagrined people in the province if it turns out that the Metro government does not work as well as it has in the past. It should. I felt strongly that the amendment would begin to allow that working together between the two levels of government.

That is going to be the no man’s land. That is the zone where I think problems can be serious in the future of the Metro government. I think we are going to have to monitor it. This government stands back and says, “Now that we have done it, we can just forget about it for ever.” I think we will want to continue to see how it works and give support to those two levels of government once they are in operation.

Maybe one of the things that will have to happen, and I will just introduce this point now, is that in future legislation there should be a far greater understanding of super-Metro, the area that includes Durham, York and Peel. There has to be some better linking between the province and the Metro government on concerns that go beyond what may now be the domain of the Metro government.

I am thinking of transportation as a real need that exists outside of the Metro government. There is going to have to be far more involvement by the province in trying to work out these issues. I think there is going to have to be more involvement by the province to handle the garbage question and the disposal of garbage. We are seeing now where Metro Toronto just cannot handle the disposal of all the garbage it gets. We do not have a good recycling program in the province and the fact is that the landfill sites are becoming filled. Pretty soon I think the province is going to have to become far more involved in helping Metro Toronto solve that problem, along with the municipalities in Ontario.

Therefore, they should not feel they have done their work by bringing out this bill. There is going to have to be far more interaction between ourselves as provincial legislators with Metro and the local governments. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could give some commitment that this kind of thing is going to be happening in the future. It would certainly lead the people of Metro Toronto to believe they are not totally forgotten at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens, I presume “Metropolitan” is to be inserted in front of “Toronto?”

Mr. Cousens: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 10(2) of the bill be amended by inserting “including an executive committee,” immediately after “committees” in the second line.

Mr. Cousens: I will be brief on it because we want to get to the other bill. The people from Etobicoke, the representations, really indicate the need for a continuing role for the controlling function for those municipalities that want to have it. What this does is give them the option for that. It is in recognition of the kind of input that was coming forward to the committee last week. Right now, if you want to continue to have an executive committee you cannot. This would give the option to those municipalities that want to have it.

1740

Ms. Bryden: The section is very general and does allow the area municipalities to appoint any standing or other committees, so that I do not think we need to specifically mention executive committees.

In the past, in some municipalities, executive committees have really taken the place of boards of control or been committees to which very important municipal functions have been assigned, such as the signing of contracts during the summer vacation when councils do not meet regularly, the issuing of building permits in special cases and things of that sort. I think those sorts of powers should be defined by the local council for any committee it sets up but that we should not necessarily say we need one particular kind of committee that may fulfil any of the functions of council.

It seems to me the more you delegate to special-purpose bodies or to subcommittees, the more danger there is that decisions will be taken out of the council chamber and made, not necessarily behind closed doors, but at meetings that are less prominent than the regular meetings of the municipality.

The other thing is that I would hope that in exercising this function of setting up committees, the councils would work towards having members of committees, elected members, because appointed members who are not members of council are not really answerable to anybody after they are appointed. In some cases, they are appointed for very long terms, sometimes at least for the three years of the municipal council that will be elected in 1988.

I would like to encourage the minister to encourage councils to produce committees that are answerable, and that should be the objective, rather than the kind of committee. That is why I do not support the amendment but I do support the principle of as many elected representatives on committees, standing or otherwise, as possible and working towards full accountability.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to comment? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Neumann: Just to say that I believe the amendment is not necessary. The present clause clarifies the situation quite well.

Mr. Chairman: Other comments? If not, are we ready to proceed with the vote? Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 10 agreed to.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 15:

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 15(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “1988” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “1991.”

Mrs. Marland: There has been a lot of discussion, as I know the committee is aware from the four days spent on this bill last week. One of the aspects that I think came out very clearly was that, in fairness to the electorate, the complexity of these changes in what will now be quite a short time frame is of concern to us. We recognize that those representatives of the municipalities who were fortunate enough to appear before us said that they had no problem with the implementation of the bill. We feel that the people who will be going out to vote as a result of this legislation will find it very complex, especially when it will be accompanied by new boundaries and especially when it will interrelate with Bill 76, which affects the school boards, their elections and their boundaries.

Because of the complexity of it, we feel that in fairness, not to the incumbent members of council or the members of staff at the administration level of the municipalities who have to implement the intent and direction of this bill but purely to those people who elect the people to represent their interests, it makes far more sense to have the bill come into effect at the next municipal election. By that time, the boundary question of all the wards, be they local municipal wards or the Metro wards, will have been very clearly dealt with. If there are appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, those will have had an opportunity for due process.

While we recognize the advantages of the bill, and obviously we are supporting the bill in totality, we do not feel that at this point in February, when it is probably going to be proclaimed in March -- in fact, it has been indicated already by an amendment that we made in committee. Originally, the bill was going to have a clause which allowed 60 days. Now we have amended that 60 days back to 30, so already there is recognition that there is a shortage of time, quite frankly, for this bill to be properly implemented for the November 14 elections in 1988.

Therefore, it seems quite logical to have the amendment I have placed, giving the people who are responsible for electing the people of their choice to represent their best interests at every level, whether it is the municipal level or the Metropolitan Toronto council level, the opportunity to fully understand where their new boundaries are and to have input into the establishment of those new boundaries. The whole process will end up being more thoroughly understood by those people who would be party to it. We feel it is in the best interests of the electorate to have this amendment which is before the House.

Ms. Bryden: While I agree that the timetable on this bill has been very condensed because of the long time taken by the government in bringing it in and that it has therefore been very difficult to work out the new boundary proposals in time to get them in effect for the 1988 election, I think the bill proposes a reform of Metropolitan council which has been sought for quite a long time to provide more accountability by the elected members and to provide a clear-cut focus on the different issues. I think we should reject the amendment but tell the minister that he must get his approvals in within a very reasonable time limit because there is still that unspecified time, after the 30 days expire, that the minister and the cabinet can take in making up their minds.

I think it would be an abdication of their responsibility to get the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ready for the 1988 elections if they did not get the approved boundaries settled within a very short time. I regret, as the member said, that there is no appeal from it, but we hope that the next time around there will be a suitable boundaries election commission.

The responsibility is now on the minister to see that this election gets into effect or that the provisions for this election get ready in time for the voters to be fully informed as to what is happening. I urge the government to exercise the responsibility that is placed on it under this act but to exercise it in a way that will see that the boundaries that come out are not ones that can be criticized as being gerrymandered.

1750

Mr. Cousens: This would not be necessary at all if, five or six months after the report on Metropolitan Toronto was received in November 1986, the minister had brought forward what is now Bill 29 so that there would have been some opportunity for the people of Metropolitan Toronto to consider it. He would have added another five months to the cycle to give people that chance that they do not have now.

If it works, it is going to be a miracle and it is going to be to the credit of the efficiency of the local clerks and the people of Metropolitan Toronto, who have really gone overboard to help make this government’s legislation work. It is not because it is timely. It is timely because it is important, but it is more important that it be right. That is why this amendment makes an awful lot of sense.

I just wish that in the future there could be a lesson learned from this experiment in government; that is, that the government will come forward with a greater length of time for the municipalities to consider all the ramifications, all the data and all the background and allow for public input so that there are no surprises such as this. That is why this bill is going to create problems.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mrs. Marland’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mrs. Marland moves that subsection 15(3) of the bill be amended by striking out “1988” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “1991.”

Mrs. Marland: The preceding argument that I have placed before the House in support of my previous amendment stands for this amendment also.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mrs. Marland’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those in opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 15 agreed to.

Section 16 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Scott, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

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

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased today to bring back to the Legislature for third reading a bill to reform the government of Metropolitan Toronto. This legislation is very important and I believe long overdue. The issues faced by Metro council are too important, the budget of the ministers is too big to be dealt with by part-time councillors and a chairman who may never have to face the electorate.

Metro council deals with matters that affect all of Metro’s more than two million people -- transportation, affordable housing, social services, the police, waste disposal -- and to do that, Metro council must be able to set aside parochial considerations and adopt a broad perspective.

As members know, this legislation addresses these problems by creating a Metro council composed of 28 directly elected, full-time councillors, one of whom will be elected chairman of the council. The mayors of the six Metro municipalities will continue to sit on Metro council to maintain the important linkage between Metro council and the local councils.

I am convinced that the reforms before us today will make Metro’s government more accountable to voters, and that it will establish a better framework for local government decision-making across Metro Toronto. I am extremely pleased that today this government is in a position to give Metro voters a system of government they can understand and Metro councillors they can hold accountable on election day.

Mr. Cousens: I think Metro Toronto will make it work and, to the credit of the people of Metro Toronto, the clerks and the politicians who believe in democracy, they will work extra hard to make sure this legislation happens to serve the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

I worry at the danger of the creation of a new level of government, which is the seventh-largest government in Canada, that of the Metro government. I am worried that there could well be a dangerous area between that level of government and the local governments, who might fail to work out their problems together. I think we will continue to monitor that and hope there is not a war zone that is created between Metro government and the local governments.

When the minister just made his remarks, he talked about the importance of housing and other issues. May I suggest that the province cannot abdicate its responsibility in these areas and say it is a Metro problem or it is a local problem. We have to get involved and solve some of these problems with those levels of government. We, as a province, have provincial lands that could be made available to help solve some of the housing problems. Let us do something about that. Let us start releasing some of those lands and let us start building some low-rental housing.

We have major problems in Metropolitan Toronto right now. They cannot be solved by Metro politicians alone. They cannot be solved by local politicians. We, in this province, at the provincial House, have a responsibility to be there as well, to work with them, to help them and make sure the funding is there to make sure this city, this great Metropolitan area, continues to prosper. The transportation services cannot be run by them alone.

We have made a move to open up Metro government. Let us make some more moves. Let us start putting some money where it counts. Let us start building houses. Let us start building affordable accommodation. Let us solve some of the problems in this city. We are not doing that, but we can do it if there is a will. This government has made promises galore but has not fulfilled them: 102,000 affordable rental units by the year 1988 and where are they? I know now that you cannot back off from the problems of Metro Toronto. You have made these problems of Metro Toronto. You have made this move. Let us see more good moves to help that great city continue to grow.

The Acting Chairman (Miss Roberts): Does any member wish to participate in the debate? If not, does the minister have any comments to close the debate?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I simply want to thank all those who contributed to the debate, especially our committee members, who spent long hours debating and listening to the many people who came before the committee. I think it is a very important bill, and I am sure the future is going to show that this has been a great move in the building of a great future for Metropolitan Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

8 février 1988