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

June 14, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L071 - Thu 14 Jun 1979 / Jeu 14 jun 1979

NEWSPAPER COLUMN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SPECIAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE

REPORT ON SALE OF GOODS

EMISSIONS OF TRITIUM

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

FLUORIDE POISONING

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

TOURISM

MINISTRY HIRING

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

DREDGING CASE

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

CANCER INSURANCE

MOOSE HUNTING

USE OF MATACIL

USE OF GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

LOTTERY PRIZES

AMBASSADOR BRIDGE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MINISTRY HIRING

REPORTS

BULK POWER FACILITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

CANADA-UNITED STATES ELECTRICITY EXCHANGES

MOTION

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGGREGATES ACT

SMALL BUSINESS ACT

PREDATOR CONTROL ACT

FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RULES OF THE HOUSE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS (CONCLUDED)

NATIONAL UNITY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

NATIONAL UNITY

ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

NEWSPAPER COLUMN

Mr. Rollins: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like to make comment on an

article in the Sun newspaper of Wednesday, June 13, written by one Gary Dunford under the heading “Everybody out on the Lawn,” making reference to all members and to the staff of this Legislature and to the manner in which it has been published.

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

“Everybody out on the Lawn!

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SPECIAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE

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

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

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

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

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

REPORT ON SALE OF GOODS

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

Lawyers practising in the area of commercial law have long recognized the need for reform. This part of the law has frequently been seen as outmoded, inadequate and irrelevant, out of touch with both commercial reality and current legal thinking. Ten years ago the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association endorsed a report recommending that

article two of the American uniform commercial code dealing with sales law should be enacted in this province. The bar association recommended this for two reasons: first, in order to revise the current law in the many areas where it is seen to be inadequate. Second, in order to make our sales law uniform with that of the United States, in view of the fact the USA is Canada’s closest trading partner.

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

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

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

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

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

In order to facilitate discussion, the commission has drafted a bill. This bill is strongly influenced by

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

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

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

Liability to an ultimate buyer is imposed upon manufacturers or distributors of goods who make representations or promises in any form relating to goods that are the subject of a contract of sale, if the representations tend to make buyers rely on them in deciding to make purchases. In many cases, an ultimate buyer would be able to take action against a manufacturer or distributor, even though there is no contractual relationship between the parties.

The commission also includes in the draft bill for the purposes of discussion, a provision which would allow an ultimate buyer to take action against a manufacturer, distributor or any other prior seller for breach of warranties which were extended to the immediate buyer.

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

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

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

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

EMISSIONS OF TRITIUM

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on a Canadian Press

article as reported in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. The

article in question refers to an Ontario Hydro safety report about a valve failure at its Rolphton nuclear power generating plant and a report that there was tritium in the turbine room. Because of the unanswered questions raised by the article, I asked Ontario Hydro to comment on the story so I could place it in proper context.

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

[2:15]

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

With regard to the valve failure in September 1978, during a regular semi-annual test of the station’s emergency light-water injection system, one of the station’s two emergency core-cooling systems, Ontario Hydro discovered that a pin forming part of the operating mechanism of an isolating valve was broken and that the valve was partially closed, even though there was no indication that this was the case. The valve is normally in an open position while the station reactor is at high power and in a closed position when the station reactor is in a cooled, shutdown stage.

If the valve is in a closed position when the station reactor is still at high power, the emergency light-water injection would not be available in the event of loss of the normal fuel-cooling system. It is not possible to determine when the pin broke or how long, if at all, the valve was in a partially closed position while the reactor was operating at high power.

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

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

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

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

I will be speaking later this evening on other matters involving the Rolphton plant, but I think I should place in the proper context the

article which appeared in yesterday’s Globe and Mail.

ORAL QUESTIONS

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

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

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

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

Mr. Peterson: None of you guys follow him.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Peterson: You are deteriorating.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister is being provocative.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Sweeney: Only while the kids are there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That rule is made.

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

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

Mr. Wildman: And people will get sick.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2:30]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cassidy: Are you prosecuting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLUORIDE POISONING

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

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

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

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

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

Accepting that the Indian children at the moment are a federal responsibility, surely the minister recognizes his responsibility for children on the mainland?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Victoria-Haliburton suggests we don’t even have a definition, and I’m happy to make him a deal: If he provides me with whatever definition he wants to use for small businesses, I’ll bet him he will find that, under whatever

definitions he wants to draw, this government still far outstrips any other government in its direct purchasing from small business.

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

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Accept the challenge, draw up the

definitions and we’ll see who’s right.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

Mr. Cassidy: Kodak imports all of those products.

HOME INSULATION PROGRAM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2:45]

Mr. Kerrio: It’s affecting the projections.

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

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

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

TOURISM

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTRY HIRING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ruston: Tory friends.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

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

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: What’s a private eye?

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

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

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

DREDGING CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUOUS COLOUR COAT LIMITED

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

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

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

It also would be useful for employees of the company should they have to appear before the Workmen’s Compensation Board following an illness related to the chemicals that were used.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: With reference to the latter part of the question, I think there’s no problem with giving that information as it relates to lead. However, with the combinations and permutations possible with that large number of compounds the honourable member spoke of, one of the problems we are having is to determine the emission because of the tremendous number of permutations. It’s proving to be a very difficult technical problem for us to solve.

Certainly we think the control order will go a long ways towards that portion of it, but to put all of the emissions on the record for the honourable member is proving to be very difficult. However, for lead, yes, we’re more than prepared to do that for him, it’s a much easier technological problem.

CANCER INSURANCE

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

[3:00]

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

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

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

MOOSE HUNTING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s right.

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

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

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

USE OF MATACIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OF GOVERNMENT COMPUTERS

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

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

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

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bradley: I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he is still available. The question relates to the construction of new regional government headquarters in various municipalities that have regional governments.

In light of the fact the provincial government has espoused the cause of financial restraint and has encouraged municipalities to practice financial restraint, would the minister feel it wise for any of those regional municipalities that do not now have a regional headquarters to embark upon a multi-million-dollar building program in order that they might have a new regional headquarters, with one would presume expanded staff and facilities at an additional cost to the taxpayer?

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

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

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

I think we have pretty well finished with the Archer report as far as Niagara is concerned.

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

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

LOTTERY PRIZES

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

Mr. Haggerty: Too many millionaires are leaving Canada.

[3:15]

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

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

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

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

AMBASSADOR BRIDGE

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

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINISTRY HIRING

Mr. Eakins: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Following my question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism in regard to the appointment of Mr. John Laschinger, the minister inferred that perhaps I had not read the full

article in regard to his appointment. I want to point out that I have a copy of the Topical Job Mart of June 1, and nowhere in the

article does it refer to the time of his appointment. In fact, in the announcement it gives his background prior to joining the Ontario public service, and the impression has been clearly given that Mr. Laschinger is now a member of the public service.

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

REPORTS

BULK POWER FACILITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO

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

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

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

These latter aspects would be considered by the Environmental Assessment Board.

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

CANADA-UNITED STATES ELECTRICITY EXCHANGES

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

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

MOTION

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

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

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AGGREGATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Mid moved first reading of Bill 127,

An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to.

SMALL BUSINESS ACT

Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 128,

An Act respecting Small Business in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

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

PREDATOR CONTROL ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 129,

An Act respecting Predator Control in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 130,

An Act respecting the sale of Farm Machinery and Equipment in Ontario.

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

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

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

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RULES OF THE HOUSE

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

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

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could speak to the point of order, I think the honourable member does raise a question with respect to the procedures for consideration of private members’ public business. There may well be some question with respect to that item scheduled for this afternoon, both with respect to the matter of substitution and particularly with respect to the amount of time which the rule requires in so far as its being published on the notice paper as standing as an item to be debated.

In order to preserve the spirit and the letter of the rule, perhaps the House should be asked for its unanimous consent that this is a change in the standing order. We would offer the consent of this side of the House that the matter proceed, notwithstanding it is out of order according to the standing orders.

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

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

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 17,

An Act to revise the Line Fences Act.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Mr. Epp moved second reading of Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

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

I am doing this for a number of reasons, but particularly because as a Liberal I believe in making government more responsive and more responsible to the electorate. So often we say the provincial representatives are responsive and responsible to the people. We mouth great rhetoric about these views, but this is an opportunity to do something. Representatives of this Legislature have an opportunity not only to speak to it, but actually endorse that principle as it is included in this bill.

I believe these two changes will present measures that are important to the people of Toronto and important to the representatives of the various councils and school boards in view of the fact that after hearing hundreds of briefs, Mr. Robarts, who headed the commission, was able to make that recommendation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3:45]

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

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

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

They go on to say: “In most Canadian provinces, the terms of office for municipal officials are thee years and in some cases four years. We are not aware of any problems arising from this situation. In

summary, the Municipal Liaison Committee has supported the three-year term of office because we firmly believe that it would contribute to improving the quality of municipal government in Ontario and the betterment of our urban communities. It could be optional for smaller municipalities to retain shorter terms if they so choose.” This is what the MLC says. It is very representative of all the municipalities in Ontario and certainly a forward-thinking and forward-looking group of men and women in this province.

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

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

Most important, I think we have to read what Mr. Robarts says about this particular item. If we look at the Robarts report, on page 67 it says; “In the view of the commission, arguments for a three-year term in Metropolitan Toronto are convincing. Metro and its constituent municipalities are large and complex organizations and decision-making is a lengthy and complicated process. Given the hiatus in policy-making that exists in the months preceding the following of a municipal election, the period in which initiatives can be planned and implemented is at present only about 18 months.

This is too short a time for a council to debate, set and implement the sort of policies that are required by one of the largest spending jurisdictions in Canada. Similarly, many school trustees have told the commission that their responsibilities are extremely complex, that these cannot be fully understood in a two- year term and that it is impossible to bring initiatives to fruition within this period.”

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

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

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

Mr. Stong: How soon they forget!

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

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

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

Mr. Wildman: He could even be from Waterloo.

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

Mr. Rotenberg: I thought it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three objections to having the chairman elected.

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

Mr. Wildman: The member hasn’t expired.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member hasn’t expired, just the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 106,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, under which the Metro chairman would be an elected member, and the councils and boards of Metropolitan Toronto would be elected on a three-year term.

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

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

Mr. Epp: The member should not be facetious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4:00]

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

I have a couple of hesitations about the bill and the way it’s worded. I would have preferred that there was some precise statement about the Metro chairman’s position. Leaving it out and just having the coverall clause is not sufficient. And I wonder about the advisability of presenting

an act which affects only Metro Toronto at this point when it has been pointed out that a number of other municipalities have an interest in this.

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

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

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

It’s important that the power and decision-making be made by the elected officials and not by the bureaucrats. A longer term, effectively dealing with this, would help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an act to amend the particular Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Lorne Cummings, at the very time of proposing the form of Metropolitan Toronto government, he felt it should be built around a three-year term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4:15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section I find offensive and, as such, the bill itself should fall.

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

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

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

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

My colleague from Waterloo quoted Mr. John Robarts who, in supporting the concept of the three-year term, said the three-year term would give “the opportunity to suggest, debate, set, and implement principles and policies.” I believe that concept could be taken one step farther. Not only would the three-year term give the opportunity to suggest, debate, set and implement policies, but it would also give the electorate a chance to assess the relative success or failure of the policies that are implemented.

That is a very important aspect to those who have to make up theft minds on election day as to the record of the person running -- whether the policies implemented in the course of his or her term were successful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

part in local council meetings.

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

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

I have heard many arguments put forward up to this point on the reasons as to why there should be a three-year term and particularly the argument that it should be because the Association of Municipalities of Ontario wants it, because the Provincial- Municipal Liaison Committee wants it, because the Metro council wants it, because Robarts recommended it. I suggest to you, however, Mr. Speaker, that in the consideration of a basic principle of whether there should be a two- or three-year term,