role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 14, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L022 - Mon 14 Dec 1987 / Lun 14 déc 1987

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

MINISTER OF HOUSING

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS

ORGAN DONATIONS

CONSERVATION FARMING ’88

MUNICIPAL ROADS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

CONSERVATION LAND

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CONSERVATION LAND

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

CONSERVATION LAND

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

SEWAGE TREATMENT

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

NORTHERN BROADCAST SERVICES

CHICKEN INDUSTRY IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

LABOUR DISPUTE

ARBITRATION BOARD RULING

VISITOR

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

WASTE DISPOSAL

EDUCATION FUNDING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN

ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

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

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

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

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

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

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

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

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

MINISTER OF HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

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

INTEGRATION OF STUDENTS

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

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

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

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

ORGAN DONATIONS

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

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

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

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

CONSERVATION FARMING ’88

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

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

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

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

MUNICIPAL ROADS

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renovations will be completed over the winter and the unit will become fully operational early next year.

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

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

In

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

CONSERVATION LAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

There is no sense of outrage in the Premier’s statement over

article 103, which is clearly an encroachment on the jurisdiction of the provinces, nothing at all on

article 1402, which deals with services and investment, or on

article 2010, which deals with the whole question of crown corporations.

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

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

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

CONSERVATION LAND

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

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

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

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

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

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

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

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

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twenty-five days earlier, he had knowingly authorized his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources to sell the softwood lumber industry down the drain in this province and cost a job loss of 500 people in northern Ontario.

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

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

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

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

I would just wish, on behalf of the many other families in Ontario with disabled children and disabled adults, that it were possible for me to assist the minister in the cabinet sweepstakes at the cabinet table, because I would like to see another area of funding which was announced by this government in the middle of June this year -- which is soon going to be six months ago -- and that is the disabled access fund, for which as yet we do not have a criterion of eligibility.

Six months later we have got a $15-million access fund, and I have to wonder where it is going to go and when it is going to be applied, or whether it is going to be like the high-tech fund, which gets all the fanfare of the announcement but in fact does not end up with any allocations within that given year.

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

CONSERVATION LAND

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

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

I have a question to the Premier concerning the free trade agreement and his announcement. The Premier would know that you do not have to read very far into the agreement --

article 103, as a matter of fact -- to see how the agreement encroaches on provincial jurisdiction. If I might quote: “The parties to this agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance...by state, provincial and local governments.”

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

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

There is no question that raises very serious questions from our point of view, not only on the question of federal-provincial allocation of powers, between

section 91 and

section 92 and who in fact has the right to implement that -- we can take specific examples like the wine deal, for example, and ask ourselves the question, “Does the federal government have the right to impose its version of the free trade agreement on a province?” We could take that back to 1936, to the labour convention cases and a variety of others, which would say that in our opinion they do not have that right to legislate in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

article 103 of this free trade agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Brandt: I’ll call him for you.

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

I am very mindful of what some senators in the United States have said. In fact, if their

interpretation is correct, I say to my honourable friend the deal is dead. It is that simple, because Ontario does not support it, Prince Edward Island does not support it, nor does Manitoba. If their

interpretation is correct, then the deal obviously will not go any further.

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

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

What I am wondering now is whether the Premier will give us his firm commitment, in view of the fact that

article 103 certainly does encroach on provincial jurisdiction, that he will officially notify the federal government that there will be a constitutional challenge to this

article of the free trade agreement.

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

The member’s legal advice to me, presumably, is that

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pouliot: No; wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am just telling the member they have, whether he knows it or not. His friends are obviously as uninformed as he is about what is going on in this government and that is okay. I do not mind. I am happy to use this Legislature to bring them up to speed on the progressive, dynamic moves and the positions this government is taking. But I say to my honourable friend and to the member, in all fairness, we are prepared to use Ontario Hydro as a development agency to create jobs, but as far as an across-the-board cut is concerned, that is not the approach we will take.

We want to see that translated into real, new jobs and real, new development. That is the approach we are taking. I understand my friend trying to use a back door to try to get a cut in northern Ontario, but I want to disabuse him of any notions he may have in that regard.

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

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have said to my honourable friend before, and I think one has to be very realistic about this, the federal government has the right to make treaties in areas of its jurisdiction. There are a number of areas, in our view, they do not have the right to make treaties in, in particular things like wine pricing. My honourable friend and others have raised the question of

section 103 and the potential constitutional implications of that in the future. I have discussed that issue today, so I will not restate the point of view I have expressed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Your question is to the Premier?

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Wrye: What an interesting reading.

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

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Brandt: You are absolutely wrong.

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

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

Mr. Brandt: Absolutely not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Rosemary Speirs’s

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

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

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

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

Mr. Jackson: That response just is not good enough. If the minister has seen the

article in the Toronto Star of last Friday, if he is aware of what is now happening or creeping into the very delicate negotiations that are occurring between the two Metro boards, he cannot stand back and watch as the situation in Hamilton gets worse and watch the potential for it to resurface here in Toronto.

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

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

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT

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

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

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

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

It is always my goal to avoid control orders as they come on line, with the MISA program being close to us, that would in fact allow a continuation of an unacceptable level of any of the materials that we consider to be of great importance. But we think this study is exceedingly important. We think as well, as I know the member will, that

part 1 of the Dillon study, which I released earlier this week, is also going to be important because it presents for us eight different potential options for dealing with the pipes that go into the sewer systems of this province, and by March of this coming year, which is three months away, we expect that we will be coming forth with the second stage of that which will identify the preferred option and we will be able to implement that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTER’S ROLE IN TRANSMISSION LINE DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Sterling: That is part of the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NORTHERN BROADCAST SERVICES

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

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

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

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

We hope that with Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission approval, we will be able to reach out in a more meaningful way to the north.

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

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

CHICKEN INDUSTRY IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows full well that, as a result of his decision, consumers in northern Ontario are still importing their chicken from Manitoba. The minister is also aware that the Trottiers from Nakina have been trying for well over a year to obtain permission for a quota system whereby the degree of consumption would be reflected by an equal degree of production in northern Ontario. The minister’s own Premier (Mr. Peterson) is on side.

As a matter of public record, he supported the Trottiers’ initiative and, if my memory serves me correctly, termed it a tragedy that the north has never been the recipient of a quota. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) has asked the minister directly to make an allocation to northern Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

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

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

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

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

Mr. Brandt: Lack of will.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE

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

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

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

LABOUR DISPUTE

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

When is the Minister of Labour going to bring Ontario’s labour laws into the 20th century and protect workers like these from employers who use strikebreakers and other unfair labour practices, such as the

section 40 vote, as a substitute for genuine collective bargaining?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The labour dispute the member for Beaches-Woodbine is referring to has indeed been one that has had a great deal of tension, and the parties have not been able to come to an agreement on a whole host of matters. She may know, however, that at this point the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in many respects. I add, however, that as a result of a request under -- I cannot recall the

section of the Labour Relations Act -- there is a vote on the employer’s last offer right at this point. l do not want to say much more about the dispute at McGregor Hosiery under the current circumstances.

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure exactly what improvements to the Labour Relations Act might have resolved the situation at McGregor. I am familiar, obviously, with the proposals the member for Hamilton East has introduced in this House. I think I have told him on a number of occasions, and I will tell my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that we are in the process now of taking a thorough look at the Ontario Labour Relations Act and considering a wide variety of amendments.

As we do that, there will be a process of consultation put in place where, I am sure, the issue of whether an employer in certain circumstances ought or ought not to be able to hire outsiders to come in and take the jobs of workers will be thoroughly canvassed.

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

ARBITRATION BOARD RULING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Which decision is it?

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

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

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

If my friend wants me to look into witches while we look into a number of other things under the Labour Relations Act, I can only tell him that I would be delighted.

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

VISITOR

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

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

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

WASTE DISPOSAL

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Skills development program, $317,011,900.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 68,

An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

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

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN

ORDERS AND NOTICES

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the ministry has made this and has given itself the arbitrariness of, “we’re going to set them for the first go-round and then after that the normal appeal processes can kick in,” it will be critical that the first suggestions for boundaries be ones that cannot be accused by anyone of being wrong. That is going to be a difficult task.

There will be some who will say, no matter what the ministry does, that the process was wrong, that the end result was wrong and that, in effect, the ministry has put some problems on people for at least this set of elections, perhaps ones that will last for the foreseeable future, because it is not going to be easy to draw those boundaries in the first instance, and once they are in place, tradition will take hold and it will be difficult to change those. The ministry seems prepared to take on that task.

I am just trying to caution the ministry that it will not be an easy thing to do, and it is going to be a critical factor in what is being suggested here.

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

It is conceivable -- at least, I can conceive it -- that the ministry would draw up a set of boundaries in Metropolitan Toronto that is totally unrealistic and that in fact puts people who are running for public office, for this Metro council position, in the kind of electoral competitiveness that none of us has. We know that when the provincial commission sets its boundaries, we always have these arguments that the commission does it by an arbitrary number system, as it did the last time around.

Sometimes that produces results which do not make sense to anybody, where there are divisions within communities that are not sensible, where there is no cohesion to the boundary that is struck, and that causes problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a kind of aura around municipal politics that is a little different from almost all other levels. It is very much on-the-street politics. It is very much a personal and very much more of a direct kind of political process. What we are doing here moves us just a little bit away from that, probably not because of anything that is in this bill directly but because, when they draw up the boundaries, these are going to be big wards to try to represent because of the nature of the Metropolitan area that is served by this bill.

It is going to be a fairly large, sophisticated group of folks who run for public office, and it is going to take a fair amount of political apparatus to get them elected too.

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

I do not pretend for a moment that you can do that kind of politics on a large scale in Metropolitan Toronto, but I think you can somewhat. I know that many people who now sit on Metro council are very proud of the fact they spend a lot of time working with community organizations. One of the appealing parts of municipal politics is that you get to stay in your own neighbourhood and work out the problems of that neighbourhood and you are not really pestered with all the intricacies of free trade, the Meech Lake accord or anything like that.

You are worried about whether somebody gets his street plowed in the wintertime or repaired in the summertime or where you put in a ball diamond, and a lot of what you do is simply to meet with community groups, hear their concerns, work with them and take them through the municipal process.

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