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

November 7, 1985

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L041 - Thu 7 Nov 1985 / Jeu 7 nov 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REPORT ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS

DRUG PRICING

REMOVAL OF WINES

FARMERS IN TRANSITION PROGRAM

ST. CLAIR RIVER

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

REMOVAL OF WINES

ST. CLAIR RIVER

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION

ST. CLAIR RIVER

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

SUMMER WAGES

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTES

REPORT ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS

ST. CLAIR RIVER

HELP CENTRES

HOTLINE FOR BATTERED WOMEN

TAX REVENUES

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST REGULATION ACT

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

MISSING CHILDREN

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

MISSING CHILDREN

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

REPORT ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Hon. Mr. Conway: It gives me great pleasure as Minister of Education to table the report of the Commission on Private Schools in Ontario. This document reflects the excellent efforts of the commissioner, Dr. Bernard Shapiro, the government-appointed 15-member advisory committee, a small secretariat established to assist with the commission's work and the many individuals and groups that took the time to respond to the call for written briefs. Dr. Shapiro in particular is to be commended for his extensive research and for the speed with which he analysed and converted the data into report form.

The Commission on Private Schools in Ontario, along with two other commissions, was established after a statement to this Legislature on June 12, 1984, by the then Premier, the Honourable William G. Davis, at the time he announced the completion of funding for the Roman Catholic separate school system. An order in council dated July 26, 1984, appointed Dr. Bernard Shapiro, director of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, sole commissioner.

The mandate of this commission was to examine the contribution of private schools in elementary and secondary education in Ontario; to identify alternative methods of governing these institutions; to explore the possibility of public funding of private schools offering elementary and secondary programs, and to examine the existing and potential relationships between private schools and publicly supported school boards.

After visiting 40 of Ontario's private elementary and secondary schools, after studying 514 written briefs, nearly half of them from individuals, and after comparing Ontario's private schools with those of other provinces and countries, the commission formulated 61 specific recommendations.

In putting together his report, Dr. Shapiro sought the opinions of Ontario's public and separate school boards, Ontario private schools, teachers' federations, school trustee organizations, supervisory officers' organizations, home and school associations, business groups, labour organizations and post-secondary institutions.

It is my express wish that the public of Ontario be given ample opportunity to respond to the issues raised by this report. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that a series of public information sessions on this report will be held around Ontario. The sessions, to be held in several regions of the province, will give the public and interested groups the opportunity to review the report before submitting their responses to the Ministry of Education. Details of the information sessions will be announced shortly.

The report will receive wide distribution to ensure maximum comments from across the province, not only from the education community but also from all people with a commitment to Ontario's education system. As part of this distribution, I am making copies available to all members of this assembly -- and they are now in the mailboxes of the honourable members -- to the media, to the public and to other interested parties.

This report is a thoroughly researched document with far-reaching public policy implications. It deserves serious attention. I await the comments of individuals and groups across Ontario with much anticipation. All responses will be received and analysed by the Ministry of Education, and I have set April 30, 1986, as the deadline for responses.

DRUG PRICING

Hon. Mr. Elston: Since I assumed the Health portfolio with our government I have been concerned about the rapidly rising costs of the Ontario drug benefit plan. I have also seen that throughout the entire retail drug market in this province there was little, if any, real protection for consumers. The cost of financing the ODB plan has been rising by nearly 23 per cent annually for the past six years, from $100 million to $350 million, and it was projected that costs this year could be as much as $400 million. These runaway cost increases are not acceptable to this government.

The Ontario drug benefit plan is one of the most utilized programs in our health care system. Last year more than 1.3 million people in Ontario used the service, and it now accounts for almost 40 per cent of all prescription drug sales in this province. It is absolutely vital that as a government we control the costs of this program and that we ensure good value for every dollar spent.

Unrealistic drug prices are a major contributing factor to the rising costs of the ODB plan, and the problem is not a new one. It would appear that the previous administration became aware of it shortly after the plan was introduced in 1974.

Pharmacists and drug manufacturers were also aware of the problem and recognized that major reforms were needed, but the former government apparently lacked the political will to tackle the issue. Indeed, two of my predecessors have recently admitted their frustration at being unable to resolve what is a very complex matter of public policy.

Let me quickly outline for the members of the House how this drug pricing issue developed. Twice each year the Ministry of Health publishes an Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, which lists the drugs that are to be provided at no charge to ODB beneficiaries. That formulary also lists the prices at which government will reimburse pharmacies for drugs dispensed under the program. These formulary prices are based on quotes received from drug manufacturers. They are not set by government.

Some manufacturers realized that by quoting artificially high prices for the formulary, prices higher than what pharmacies were actually paying for drugs, there was an incentive for pharmacies to purchase their products. Government reimbursements for drugs dispensed under the ODB are, as a result, higher than the cost of many drugs to pharmacies.

It can be easily seen how this resulted in excess costs to the Ontario drug benefit plan. This practice of price spreading, and the fact that it was allowed to continue for so long by the previous government, represents an unnecessary burden on all Ontario taxpayers.

I should also point out that since the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary is used as a pricing guide for prescription drug sales in the cash market, its artificially high prices have resulted in excess costs for cash customers and for those on other drug plans as well.

Members of this House will recall that early in September I announced my intention to publish a new Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, one that would establish realistic pricing levels for drugs. This initiative has been delayed after a court challenge by a generic drug manufacturer. Because of this delay, excess costs of at least $3 million to $4 million per month will continue to be borne by taxpayers and consumers alike.

2:10 p.m.

There were to be 55 new drug products included as benefits in the September formulary, benefits which we have not been able to provide because of the court action, and we have been unable to adjust prices to reimburse pharmacies for the new federal excise tax on some drug products as a result of the delay.

Today I will introduce two bills into this House, bills which will ensure sound management of the Ontario drug benefit plan, protect all consumers of prescription drugs in Ontario, and re-establish public confidence in our retail drug industry. In addition, I am presenting draft regulations that will be circulated to pharmacists, drug manufacturers and consumer groups for their comments and views.

The Ontario Drug Benefit Act, for the first time, gives government the legislative authority to manage the Ontario drug benefit plan.

The second bill I am introducing today, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, is consumer protection legislation to ensure that high-quality, low-cost drugs are available and accessible to the Ontario public.

Under the first bill, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, government will be given legislative authority to determine what drugs are to be included in the Ontario drug benefit plan, who is eligible to receive drug benefits, and the prices that government will pay for drugs listed in the ODB formulary.

I recognize that the major chains and larger operators may be able to negotiate volume discounts which are unavailable to some of the smaller independent pharmacies. This new act provides flexibility so that no pharmacy operator will be reimbursed for drugs dispensed under the ODB plan at a level lower than what pharmacies pay for drugs. Together with a fair dispensing fee, this will help to ensure the continued economic viability of small, independent pharmacies and recognize the contribution they make to our health care system.

The legislation requires pharmacy operators to validate their costs for drugs, if required, and the ministry is given authority to inspect and audit pharmacy records for consistency and accuracy.

Finally, the Ontario Drug Benefit Act provides for fines of up to $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for corporations if they contravene the act.

With every expectation that this proposed legislation will be approved by this House and become law, I have instructed ministry representatives to meet with drug manufacturers and collect the information necessary to produce a formulary with realistic drug prices.

I am also concerned that a fair and equitable dispensing fee be negotiated for Ontario pharmacists. Representatives of my ministry and representatives of pharmacists are continuing their discussion on this matter, and I am confident that a mutually acceptable agreement will soon be reached.

I wish to stress the urgency of moving quickly with this bill. My intention is to produce a new formulary for January 1, so that additional drugs can be included as benefits and prices adjusted to reflect the federal excise tax on certain drug products.

The second bill, the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act, governs all drug purchases made in Ontario whether under the ODB plan, a private drug plan or in the cash market.

Under this act, government can designate which drugs are interchangeable. These decisions will be based on the recommendations of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, an external advisory group to the Minister of Health, composed of physicians, pharmacists and pharmacologists. Except where a physician has written specifically, "No substitution," pharmacists will have to inform customers about their right to request an interchangeable drug. Pharmacists will then be required to fill prescriptions according to the customer's choice.

The regulations to this act will require that all interchangeable drugs dispensed by Ontario pharmacists to cash-paying customers will be sold at cost plus a reasonable dispensing fee. For the cash market, pharmacies are free to establish their own dispensing fee for interchangeable drugs and this fee is to be registered with the Ontario College of Pharmacists. Pharmacies will be required to post this fee prominently and to inform customers about it. For all prescription sales both in the cash market and under the government's ODB plan pharmacists will be required to itemize the dispensing fee, along with the price of the drug, either on the customer's receipt or the prescription label.

I should point out that this proposed legislation will abolish the one-month-supply limit of prescriptions that now exist under the Ontario drug benefit plan. We estimate that the savings to the Ontario taxpayer from this one regulation alone will be approximately $10 million per year. Except in special circumstances, all prescription drugs will be dispensed in the entire quantity prescribed.

This legislation also provides for an inspection of pharmacy records to ensure compliance with the act. Once again, penalties of up to $10,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporation may be imposed for violations.

Our government considers this legislation to be extremely important. The two acts are complementary in that government use of public funds will be more properly controlled and consumer interests in the marketplace better protected. If senior citizens and other eligible people are to continue receiving drugs at no charge, Ontario drug benefit costs must be brought under control and the program more effectively managed.

If benefits are to continue expanding, if more drugs are to be added to the benefit formulary, and if the growing utilization of the Ontario drug benefit plan we expect to occur is to be accommodated, the enactment of this proposed legislation now is required.

Similarly, if consumers in Ontario are to be protected from paying unnecessarily high costs for drugs when lower-cost alternatives are available and if they are to be informed about these low-cost alternatives and make their decisions accordingly, this House must move in all urgency towards the passage of this legislation.

REMOVAL OF WINES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Last week I instructed the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario to inform the public immediately upon the removal of any product from its shelves for health or safety reasons. I also asked to be informed of any other instances that had not been previously publicly disclosed.

Yesterday morning my office was contacted by Jack Ackroyd, chairman of the LCBO, who had just learned of a situation that required my immediate attention. It appears that in 1979-80 the LCBO, in the course of laboratory testing, found a substance known as ethyl carbamate in certain alcoholic products. Ethyl carbamate can occur naturally in some fermented products and it has been established that the use of urea as a yeast booster in wine fermentation results in the creation of ethyl carbamate as a byproduct.

Ethyl carbamate has been shown to produce tumors in a variety of laboratory animals. It is accorded status as a demonstrated animal carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and I am advised it would be prudent to treat ethyl carbamate as a potential human carcinogen.

It was apparently decided at the LCBO to prohibit the use of urea by Ontario wineries. No public statement was made at the time and no product was removed from the shelves. To the best of my information, in 1982 this matter arose again at the LCBO and it seems the LCBO staff clearly identified its concern about the continuing high levels of ethyl carbamate found in certain products. Notwithstanding this, it appears no product was removed from shelves and no public statement was made until today.

Yesterday Mr. Ackroyd informed me that ethyl carbamate continues to be found in some LCBO products at levels that are of great concern to me.

This situation causes me concern. As I indicated to this House last Thursday, I have a great deal of concern about the need for the immediate public disclosure of information about a substance that might be a health risk. The fact that information concerning ethyl carbamate was known to the LCBO for a number of years and not disclosed is very troublesome.

I am concerned that the lack of information on the tolerable levels for ethyl carbamate makes it very difficult for me to arrive at an acceptable level for human consumption. From my preliminary discussions with Dr. Lesbia Smith, the medical consultant in toxicology with the Ministry of Health, it would appear the level of 500 parts per billion is a cautious and conservative safety level to be applied in cases of this kind. I want to emphasize this is an interim level to be applied pending further study. My staff has contacted the Ontario Medical Association and the Canadian Centre for Toxicology to seek further advice concerning a tolerable interim level.

2:20 p.m.

Upon being advised of this situation, I immediately called a meeting of Ontario winery representatives and the Wine Council of Ontario to discuss the matter. These representatives agreed with my recommendation that any products above the level of 500 parts per billion of ethyl carbamate be withdrawn today and held pending the outcome of an investigation of this situation.

In addition to Ontario products, there are also a number of imported products which exceed the 500 parts per billion level. A great deal more work is necessary before we can be sure of an appropriate standard. The following steps are being taken to deal with this matter:

Yesterday I ordered all identified products above the 500 parts per billion level be withdrawn from Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores, and that was done this morning.

As a result of my meeting with industry officials last night, the industry is immediately withdrawing the identified products from their own store shelves. The industry will not use any of the older blending wines which are suspected of containing high levels of ethyl carbamate until they have had an opportunity to test them.

The LCBO laboratory staff will be working all weekend testing samples. They will continue to do so until we are satisfied they have identified all products that contain excessive levels of ethyl carbamate. To expedite this process, I have authorized the use of outside facilities and I will make public the comprehensive list.

The Canadian Centre for Toxicology has been asked to study this problem and to recommend safe levels of ethyl carbamate for alcoholic beverages. I have asked the chairman of the LCBO to contact all other provincial liquor authorities and other officials affected by our action.

The list of the seven Ontario products and three imported products containing more than 500 parts per billion of ethyl carbamate, of which we are currently aware, is now being made public. If additional products are identified as being at or beyond that level, they also will be disclosed. As well, any consumer who wishes to return the identified products will receive a refund from the LCBO.

As I have indicated in this statement, I am greatly disturbed with how this situation came to pass and how best to deal with the related health issues. To address these matters, I have contacted the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who, in turn, has spoken to the Chief Justice of Ontario in connection with the establishment of a judicial inquiry.

The inquiry will be asked to review immediately our interim level, to recommend any adjustments that may be justified pending a final determination of an acceptable standard and to report back to me as soon as possible. It also will be asked to establish an acceptable standard, and this may take considerable work. The Canadian Centre for Toxicology will report directly to the inquiry.

The inquiry also will be asked to review the practices and procedures of the LCBO that led to this information being withheld and to recommend changes that are necessary. In this regard, the other cases of failure to disclose publicly the products which had been removed because of possible health risks also will be submitted to the inquiry for consideration and recommendations.

FARMERS IN TRANSITION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I wish to announce yet another of the initiatives undertaken by this government to help the farmers of this province through some rather difficult times.

In his budget, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) indicated that my ministry would be undertaking a $6-million program for farmers in transition. The five-part program will represent assistance for two groups: farmers who are discontinuing business because of severe financial problems and those who need assistance in making changes to enhance their chances of success.

The adjustments now taking place in agriculture because of low commodity prices and high input costs are expected to result in several hundred farmers losing their farms this year. This means losses of jobs, homes, sources of income and savings. We hope to stem this and, where it cannot be stopped, assist the farm family to re-establish.

By way of background, the members may know there is a moratorium on Farm Credit Corp. initiated foreclosures pending a review of the Farm Credit Corp. mandate. That review and a decision regarding debt review boards and amendments to the Bankruptcy Act are due about the same time. While we are waiting for federal action in these areas, and that is the only jurisdiction legally able to take those steps, Ontario will proceed with its program.

As a first step in the farmers in transition program, commonly called FIT -- and we would like to think it is fit for the times -- Ontario will temporarily defer action against farmers in financial trouble. The deferral means that collection calls will not be made and legal action will not be taken on arrears of Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp. mortgages and lease with option to purchase agreements under the farm enlargement program.

In addition, provincial requirements for action on guarantee claims under option C of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program will be temporarily lifted. Up to 400 farm families will be affected by this decision, which is effective immediately. This move will ensure that farmers are not forced out of business because of provincial action before they have had the opportunity to take advantage of the federal activities mentioned, and also the provincial initiatives which will be in place later this month.

I am inviting the lending institutions to join Ontario in withholding action on option C under the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. I have met with all the chartered bank officials during the last few weeks, and there will be a further meeting with the Canadian Bankers' Association at the end of this month. The temporary deferral will remain in effect until January 15, 1986, or until the federal government lifts the moratorium on Farm Credit Corp. foreclosures, whichever comes first. The province will reconsider its position if there is not any federal action by January 15.

Four other actions to assist farmers in dealing with the financial and emotional stress caused by today's difficult financial situation are as follows:

A one-window approach will be set up for farmers seeking information on how to deal with stress, how to locate professional assistance in dealing with creditors and to help them understand their rights and obligations. This will consist of a hotline which farmers can call a Zenith number, anonymously if they wish, for advice 24 hours a day. It will be located outside Toronto and staffed by my ministry personnel, who will be on duty from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. For the rest of the day an answering service will take calls and relay them to staff who will call just as soon as possible.

Staff will advise farmers of the location and availability of assistance close to home or of help available from other ministries and the federal government. We expect this service to be in place on December 1.

The third step is the hiring and training of independent farm family advisers. Currently, many farmers in financial distress have difficulty sorting out their problems and recognizing possible solutions. Because of lack of funds or the absence of skilled professionals, they have no opportunity for independent advice. This service will consist of farmers who understand the business giving an outside viewpoint to farmers in financial difficulty. The advisers will review the farm operations, help the farmer recognize what action must be taken and assist the farmer to find and access realistic options. They will also assist the farmer in the development of an action plan.

I am pleased to inform the honourable members that this peer counselling will be overseen by a board of directors. The five-farmer board will review policy issues and make recommendations, review adviser reports, recommend some farmers for the advisory service, evaluate the advisers' work and hear complaints from farmers who believe they have not been well advised.

Another step is to make farmers more aware of assistance under the current farm operation credit assistance program. The chartered banks have agreed that every eligible farmer who does business with them has the right to have his case reviewed under FOCAP. This does provide a third-party review of the viability of a farmer's operation before any action is taken by the creditor. This process will be enhanced by the farm family advisers I mentioned earlier. The advisers can help the farmer develop and present a plan that has a chance for success.

2:30 p.m.

My ministry will undertake an enhanced awareness campaign to tell farmers of their rights and responsibilities, let farmers know how to access their rights if they have problems and highlight the key features of this existing third-party review system. The reviews may be conducted by the provincial decision committee, which is made up of highly respected farmers. Their deliberations carry considerable weight with lenders.

The fifth step is re-establishment assistance. This initiative is for farm families who have had to discontinue working in agriculture because of financial problems. We want to assist them to become re-established in some other endeavour. The program has several components.

The first is to offer advice on how to access various social services and employment assistance programs offered by the provincial and federal governments. The program will also provide eligible farm families with financial assistance during the period of job search and further financial and counselling help to enhance their employment opportunities. I hope to have these initiatives operational early next month and I will be announcing more details nearer that time.

These measures will work in concert with the $50-million Ontario family farm assistance program I announced this summer and with plans nearing completion on national tripartite income stabilization. We also have an interministerial task force on agricultural finance in operation, which will report next February. Taken together, they form a comprehensive package of initiatives that will substantially help our hard-pressed farming community.

Mr. Speaker: I understand there is a further statement. However, I must point to standing order 64(k), which states that only 30 minutes is allowed for ministerial statements unless the members of the House are agreeable to extend that.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have been given a note that there is one more statement of two pages. If that is the case, our party will not object.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement by the members of the House?

Agreed to.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would like to bring members up to date on developments in the St. Clair River situation. First, let me clarify the three investigations into environment-related matters in the region that relate to this.

My ministry's own investigations and enforcement branch conducted an investigation of the August 1985 perchloroethylene spill into the river. That probe is just being completed. Dow Chemical Canada Inc. has been charged in connection with this spill.

As well, the Ontario Provincial Police are investigating some circumstances surrounding the movement of waste from facilities in southeastern Ontario to the Sarnia area and then into the United States.

Additionally, my ministry has taken a hard look at our own abatement and enforcement efforts along the St. Clair River, including the matter of the toxic sludge at the bottom of the river. To my knowledge, there is no police involvement in the oily sludge situation.

The chemical valley in Sarnia has been causing environmental problems for a number of years now. The presence of a range of chemicals in St. Clair is an ominous reminder that significant remedial action is needed.

The range of chemicals found in sediment, raw water and an oily sludge, or so-called blob, includes certain forms of dioxins and furans. However, it is important to point out that none of these chemicals has been found in the treated water and that the next toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, has not been found in the treated water, raw water, sediment or oily sludge.

I want to assure the House that I have set out an aggressive program for my ministry aimed at cleaning up the area. Let me outline some of the measures under way. Others will be forthcoming as the exact dimensions of the problem become clear in the weeks ahead.

I have today approved removal of the so-called blob. On October 18 my ministry received a proposal from Dow to vacuum sediment that contains puddles of contaminated oily material. Recognizing the importance of the cleanup, my ministry has carefully but promptly reviewed the proposal in consultation with Environment Canada, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wallaceburg, Walpole Island, Windsor, Amherstburg and the area medical officers of health.

Our approval of the removal of the sediment is subject to conditions and certain actions that have been and will be taken by my ministry in monitoring this project. This cleanup covers the area occupied by the so-called blob and should result in its virtually complete removal.

This action includes the promise of powdered activated carbon facilities at the water treatment plants at Walpole Island and Wallaceburg. Further action includes a rigorous sampling and monitoring program by my staff and a communication link with interested parties.

The approval and conditions are being conveyed to Dow by a letter from my regional staff and will permit the project to begin as soon as equipment can be mobilized and weather permits. It is anticipated the project could commence as early as next week.

The Detroit-St. Clair-St. Mary's rivers project team created by my ministry is working to improve water quality. It is assessing water quality, identifying contamination sources and taking measures to reduce chemical contamination.

I have requested the ministry's investigations and enforcement branch to conduct a thorough investigation into the improper disposal of chemical wastes in salt caverns. Also, I have asked the Detroit-St. Clair-St. Mary's rivers team to undertake studies to determine types of contaminants in the deep wells and to determine if the contaminants are moving through fissures into ground water or the St. Clair River.

The project team is putting together an inventory of potentially hazardous waste disposal sites in the region. It will assess the potential surface and ground water problems associated with those sites to determine the need for additional monitoring.

All control orders and certificates of approval in the chemical valley are being reviewed. My ministry will assess the adequacy of these controls and require improvements where necessary. I anticipate significantly lower waste loadings of the river will result from this initiative.

A joint provincial-federal program has been implemented to monitor point sources on the Detroit River. The program will focus next on the St. Clair River. It will enable us to determine further monitoring needs and identify substances requiring additional controls. Covered by the survey are 18 industries and nine municipal sewage treatment plants, which will also include the St. Mary's River.

Future activities of the project team include expanded monitoring of ambient waters, year-round sampling of water quality, status reports on St. Clair River quality and an inventory of agricultural practices and their effects.

The ministry's project team and staff from other branches are active members of committees of the upper Great Lakes connecting channels study. The study, undertaken by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the state of Michigan and the city of Detroit, will determine the existing environmental condition of the aforementioned rivers and Lake St. Clair. The study includes 69 projects ranging from sediment sampling and analysis to determining the adequacy of control programs.

My ministry's Sarnia office has been upgraded and will be expanded further, both to reflect the importance we attach to the St. Clair River cleanup and to make that cleanup happen.

These are just some of the measures we have taken and are planning. I want to assure the House that this region has been given a priority for prompt remedial action.

PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr. Morin-Strom: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I feel my privileges have been infringed upon by the leak of a confidential report of the select committee on economic affairs to the Toronto Star yesterday.

The New Democratic Party members took care to ensure that our dissenting report did not get leaked, but the majority report apparently has been.

I would ask that the Speaker investigate the circumstances of this leak and report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I feel the member has a point of privilege and I appreciate his suggesting that the Speaker investigate. I would like to suggest that the member make a motion that it be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Morin-Strom moves that his point of privilege be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I rise as chairman of the select committee on economic affairs. I, too, was surprised and shocked to read the

article on the front page of today's Toronto Star. I have no idea of its source. If it is of any assistance to the House, I will be tabling the interim report from the select committee on economic affairs at the appropriate time this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This a very interesting and innovative approach that I do not recall happening. I just checked with the Clerk of the House and he tells me it is perfectly in order and the motion apparently does not have to be seconded. The member is placing a motion that a matter before the House be sent to the procedural affairs committee.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I guess we are in favour of open government. I am not exactly sure of the procedures. I am not sure how we got the motion. I am not questioning it, but if that is where we are at, can we have the motion read? I am not sure we had any advance notice of it, and I gather we are being asked to vote on something that has been brought up just now.

Mr. McClellan: If it is any help to my colleague, the motion is that the matter of the premature leak of the report of the select committee on economic affairs prior to the report's tabling in the House be referred to the procedural affairs committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the original point of order or on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It was of great assistance to me when the Clerk said the fact that the Speaker found this to be a breach of the privileges of the House makes the motion from the honourable member in order. I was not aware of that, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is only fair, however, to ask whether all members are particularly familiar with what is contained in the motion.

Some hon. members: We are. Motion agreed to.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REMOVAL OF WINES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with regard to his statement today. On behalf of our leader, I thank the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for the advance information we received on this most serious matter.

I also wish to thank the officials who were kind enough to brief fully our staff and others in our caucus. As a result of this advance briefing, it has become quite apparent that none of the ministers or deputies of the day were made aware of this situation, and we have no hesitation in endorsing the inquiry into the role of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in this case.

That having been said, can the minister tell the House what is being done immediately to ensure that similar unfortunate situations such as those that have occurred in a number of other countries and may involve public health are avoided? Can the minister assure the House that the reporting responsibilities of the LCBO now will clearly be defined?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In my statement I said that as part of the terms of reference I am going to address to the judicial inquiry, I am going to have it look into all the procedures to come up with guidelines that should be used. Even before that commission reports, as I announced last Thursday, I have instructed the chairman, Jack Ackroyd, to take a look at the procedures to make sure he does all he can to tighten up the procedures and to report to me so that I, in turn, can keep this House and the public informed.

Mr. Harris: To ensure that all food products, all liquors and other products consumed in Ontario are safe, will the minister look into the possibility of consolidating and centralizing the various laboratories run by the province, which now are in a number of locations and under various jurisdictions, to help ensure that the best medical minds at our disposal are brought together in one place to deal with this critical issue?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will certainly look into that, and I thank the honourable member for his suggestion.

Mr. Rae: On the basis of the information the minister has today, can he tell us who did know and did nothing? The minister must have certain information that led him to insist on an inquiry. Surely it is up to him now to come into the House and come clean and tell us precisely who at the LCBO did know about the presence of ethyl carbamate. Why did they not tell anybody about it? How long has this been kicking around unknown to anyone?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is exactly what the judicial inquiry is going to find out.

Mr. Harris: Can the minister assure us that to his knowledge this problem is limited to those few products that were removed from the shelves today? Is it a widespread problem in Ontario wines or any others wines on our province's shelves?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot give a definitive answer to the member. Ports and sherries are suspected products, and those are the ones that have been investigated. We have examined all the ports and sherries from Ontario and all those imported. This weekend we are going to be examining all the products. All members should be aware that in many products there are background traces of ethyl carbamate. We are concerned about excessive levels, and to know what a safe level is, we are looking into all aspects of that problem.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment with respect to his statement in the House today. He indicated that he has asked, and I am quoting from his statement, "the Detroit-St. Clair-St. Mary's rivers study team to undertake studies to determine types of contaminants in the deep wells and to determine if the contaminants are moving through fissures into ground water of the St. Clair River."

Before I ask my question, I want to say that I welcome the statement of the minister with respect to certain actions he is taking. A great number of them had already been taken by a former minister and a former ministry.

One of those actions concerns my question, which relates to a matter I am sure the minister is aware of; that is, the development of five monitoring wells, which were put into place by the industries in concert with the Ministry of the Environment with the specific purpose of monitoring any offsite leachate or any migration of contaminants from wells.

Can the minister tell us today whether he has any reports to indicate that any such leachate or offsite migration is occurring, since these wells have been in place for about the past year?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Some of those wells have been in place, and we had been testing before this matter came to light in the House. To this time, we have been unable to determine whether there is evidence that those wells are the cause. However, the testing is incomplete. We have not ruled out the possibility that the contamination found in the river, in those oily puddles, might well be from the old pressure wells, which have been in existence for some time.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the water quality, particularly drinking water in Wallaceburg and in some of the downstream areas, the minister has stated that the water is perfectly safe to drink and meets all standards.

Does the minister have any reports at his disposal which he is prepared to table in this House and which would indicate any deterioration in the water quality? Is the opposite the case? Does the Ministry of the Environment have any reports that would indicate the water quality has been improving over the years rather than deteriorating? Which position is it?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Because of the kind of testing that has gone on over the years -- it has not been as extensive as we would have liked -- that is difficult to determine. There had been a general perception that there was an improvement in the overall quality of water until we found what some people call a blob, these oily patches at the bottom of the river, or the sludge. This has made us think the results which indicated there perhaps was an improvement in the water quality can be called into question as a result of these findings.

Until such time as there is a very extensive review -- and, as the honourable member knows, Environment Canada is doing some investigating, as we are -- and until such time as we can determine the extent of that specific problem and those specific findings, we will not be able to make that judgement.

I can say that because of what we have found in our testing in that area, where we find those oily patches at the bottom, I am very concerned that we have substances in the water that should not be there; that is why I want to take all these precautionary and cleanup measures.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has raised the question of the storage in underground wells. His federal counterparts have been assuring the House of Commons that we just have to trust the provincial Ministry of the Environment; so I am glad of his concern.

Can the minister tell this House who gave approval for the disposal or storage of toxic chemicals in underground caverns -- or gravity wells, as I think they are being called -- when that approval was given, the nature of that approval and whether the ministry has information about the quantity and nature of the chemicals that are stored in those underground caverns?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are talking about two different things. We should delineate what we are talking about. If we are talking about the deep wells, the pressure wells, that is one thing; it is the Ministry of the Environment that gives the approval.

Then there are caverns, which are not pressure wells; l guess they work on the basis of gravity. In most cases, one anticipates that product that has yet to be sold is stored in those. However, it is my understanding that approval was given by the Ministry of the Environment for the storage of the material that Dow has placed in the cavern. We are not talking about the deep wells. I think that is important; I know the honourable member wants me to point that out. That approval was given by the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to get some indication from the minister. After having released this report in the House today, surely he would have some indication of what the total cost is going to be to his ministry with respect to this very elaborate cleanup program. Can he share those costs with us to give us some indication of what the price tag will be on the actions he is taking?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have not been able to determine what that cost will be, but I do want to tell members of the House that whatever cost is necessary to ensure that there is safe drinking water and safe recreational water in the St. Clair River and for those communities downstream will be paid.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION

Mr. Rae: Two cleanups are necessary; one is the cleanup of the environment, and the other is the cleanup of the ministry. With respect to the second cleanup, can the minister confirm that one of the individuals being investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police is Mr. Dochstader, who is the head of the Sarnia office of the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I indicated to the honourable member in the House earlier, I am not prepared at this time to reveal who specifically is being investigated, because I want to ensure that the investigation is carried out in an appropriate fashion and that it is most effective.

Mr. Rae: There are reports from the OPP in the newspapers that information has been forwarded to the Minister of the Environment. Surely the minister will share my concern that those who are doing the investigation with respect to Dow, the caverns and the blob should not be the ones who are under investigation themselves. That in itself hinders the integrity of the very investigation of the environment that is in place.

Can the minister assure us that individuals who are currently under investigation by the OPP for criminal activity are in no way involved in the cleanup of the environment that he has undertaken and that he has said is under way now in Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I cannot give the member an assurance that any specific person to whom he makes reference is not involved in the operations of the Ministry of the Environment. I can say, and I think this is important for the member to know, that the investigations and enforcement branch of this ministry is deeply involved in that investigation and that the investigation is being directed from the highest levels of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Brandt: I want the minister to know, as I stated in this House previously, that I respect the need for confidentiality with respect to the investigation. I find it totally inappropriate to be using the names of individuals who may or may not be under investigation, as was suggested by the leader of the third party. In my view, it is grossly inadequate for the leader of the third party to be bandying about names in this Legislature.

The shroud of doubt and uncertainty that surrounds the riding I represent and the area I am representing here in the Legislature has me concerned. Can the minister give us a time frame for when those investigations will be completed so we can get back to a normal course of operation in Sarnia and not be paid visits by some hysterical opportunists from another political party?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: l want to ensure that these investigations are completed at the very earliest opportunity for many reasons. One of the reasons, as the honourable member mentioned, is the need for efficiency in the area. We want to ensure that those investigations are completed at the earliest opportunity.

I think it is important to know the investigations we are talking about. If we are talking about the investigation of the perchloroethylene spill, that is an independent investigation being conducted by my enforcement and investigation branch. I believe six charges have been brought against Dow Chemical over that. I cannot promise specifics of that because it will be before the courts.

If we are talking about investigation of Canflow, that investigation has been under way for some time. I expect that investigation to be completed in the relatively near future and the results made known to the public in the relatively near future.

If we are talking, as the leader of the third party has mentioned, about my personal investigation and assessment of the activities of my ministry and the possibility for any improvements in the interests of efficiency and interests of cleaning up as much of the pollution as possible in that area, I can assure him that will be ongoing, but already there are activities taking place within the ministry which are assisting in cleaning up the problem. I want to address the cleanup of the problem.

Mr. Rae: There is a lot of cleaning up that has to take place; we will all agree on that.

I want to ask the minister specifically about the nature of the upgrading in the Sarnia office he has talked about. In the minister's last statement, he talked about a reorganization. My question is about people who have been the subject of an OPP investigation and who are being investigated by the minister's senior staff as part of his investigation with respect to what took place. Are these people still in charge or still playing a role in the Sarnia office? Are they still going to be carrying responsibility for the investigation of what the minister calls the improper disposal of chemical wastes in salt caverns and those questions? Are those people still going to be there?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I guess I am one of these people who believe a person is not guilty until that person has been found to be guilty in a situation of this kind. I can assure the member that all the appropriate people in my central office and in the St. Clair area are involved in both the investigation and the cleanup activities. The member can be assured by me that effort will not be impeded in any way by the investigation that is going on at present.

2:50 p.m.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: Again, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I want to get back to the question of caverns and/or pressurized wells and repeat very clearly what this House needs to know. Can the minister tell us who gave approval to store or dispose of toxic chemicals in either of those facilities? When was that approval given? What is in them? How much of the various chemicals is there at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Approval has been given through the auspices of the Ontario government. I think the member understands there is a split jurisdiction. Our ministry is involved, but the Ministry of Natural Resources actually gives the approval for the storage in salt caverns. I do not want to shunt it off somewhere else; I just want to delineate it. The Ministry of Natural Resources approves the storage in the salt caverns, but the Ministry of the Environment approves any disposal. When any disposal takes place, that has to involve our ministry.

Mrs. Grier: Given the suspicion that leakage from those caverns or wells is contributing to the formation of the blob, can the minister assure us that the vacuuming or removal of the blob, as he has described it today, will not contribute to the problem? Given that there is obviously not time for an environmental assessment of the implications of that vacuuming, can he elaborate on the point in his statement where he says conditions have been laid down under which that vacuuming can be done by Dow?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member identifies one of the real dilemmas a minister must face in this regard in terms of the cleanup operation that takes place. Does one go in right away and vacuum up the globules that are down there and get the material out as soon as possible with the risk that some side problems might arise, or does one carefully assess the potential problems that could arise? I chose the second course of action, even though it would have been more expeditious to do it immediately.

We have considered those possibilities. We have taken contingency plans into consideration. As a ministry, we feel that it can be vacuumed up, that we can get it and that most of it will be cleaned up. However, I am not one of those people who will stand in the House and say, "I can assure the members that everything will be swept clean and nothing will be left down there."

Our ministry will be monitoring it to ensure there are not those problems. With regard to drinking water, the members who represent places downstream will know from my statement that we have powdered activated carbon available. We have assessed it and it is our feeling it can be done without a problem arising. That is after considerable evaluation of the problem. The alternative would be to leave it there.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the approval of these wells for either disposal or storage purposes, could the minister share with the House the type of procedure for approval that is followed by his ministry? Is it possible for any one individual to give approval for particular chemicals or substances to be disposed of in a well? Alternatively, is it necessary for the process to involve a number of people in the ministry through various levels who would then have to give their approval before they could proceed with the disposal in the normal fashion?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There is a fairly intricate procedure that those who wish to use these wells must go through. In years gone by, they had to go through that procedure. If we look at 1985, and I think it is important to bring this up to date, we would want to review those procedures to be assured they were proper. Back in those days, I suppose they were considered to be proper. We may or many not be paying for the consequences according to what the purge wells determine. It is not a simple procedure that a person has to go through. There are several hoops people have to go through.

Mrs. Grier: The minister has identified that the people downstream who take their drinking water from the St. Clair River obviously are vitally concerned about this whole process. Does the minister feel it is good enough to say he will make powdered carbon available to those communities? Why is the minister not considering carbon beds, which we have some assurance can remove those substances from the water?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the member and others are most concerned about dioxin, but there are other products we should all be concerned about. It has been found that many of these materials are removed through the basic process that exists at the present time; that is, the filtration system we have had for a number of years. To install the carbon beds immediately at some great expense, perhaps unnecessarily, would be moving too quickly and too extensively on the problem.

I want the member to know that ultimately, if that were determined to be the need -- because there is this ongoing look at a number of areas in the river by Environment Canada and our ministry -- as I assured the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) in response to his very legitimate question the other day, we would be prepared to undertake that activity. It has been found, as the member will recall in the case of alachlor, for instance, that the powdered activated carbon had the effect of taking out that contaminant.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister has been made aware of the reports during the past couple of days with respect to failed negotiations on the matter of the extension of funding to the separate school system. He has no doubt been made aware in reports from different regions of the province that emotions are not abating, that divisions in homes, communities and school districts are continuing and widening.

Will the minister, at the conclusion of the legislative committee hearings on this matter, bring Bill 30 back into the Legislature this fall for finalization of that piece of legislation so there can be some legal certainty?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to welcome the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) back to the Legislature from what I know has been a very busy fall.

I do not share his assessment of the education scene in Ontario in the fall of 1985. It is my sense, on the basis of a fair bit of travel, that the Ontario community has adjusted quite well and quite sensitively to the policy this government put before this Legislature on July 4.

The standing committee on social development has been busily at work. Very constructive and positive attitudes have been adopted not just by the committee members but also by the more than 500 groups and individuals who have appeared before the committee. As the honourable member knows, we have a timetable that calls for a continuance of that committee process.

I have indicated on behalf of the government that we will not proceed with clause-by-clause on the bill until the Ontario Court of Appeal makes its ruling, which I expect to be some time late this year or early in 1986.

I am quite proud of my Ontario for the way it has accepted this initiative, which has been endorsed by all parties in this Legislature and, from what I can see, by the vast majority of sensitive and understanding Ontarians.

Mr. Pope: This government has played a sad game with this legislation and with the court processes. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said on April 19 that it did not matter what the court said, it was going to go ahead. There is no law in place to deal with the rights of individual students, parents, teachers and boards. That is part of the reason school boards are not meeting with one another. That is part of the reason the government is getting increasing court challenges in this sad game. The minister should get that legislation in place.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: For the record, what this government did under the leadership of this Premier in eight days in the early part of the summer of 1985 was to set out very clearly a thoughtful and sensible multifaceted policy in this connection, which I believe is being well received by the vast majority of Ontarians and which, I must say again, is vastly more than that party did in 13 months while it was charged with the responsibility of this historic initiative begun by Premier William Davis in this assembly on June 12, 1984.

SUMMER WAGES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources about his ministry's tree-planting contracts and unpaid wages.

If the minister has investigated the case I brought to his attention on Tuesday evening, he will know that 160 young people and native Canadians have planted trees for that contractor but only 15 have been paid wages to date. On Tuesday, the minister made a commitment to do something in a monetary way for those young people who have been taken advantage of.

Can the minister now guarantee that these workers will receive the full wages due to them?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In responding to the honourable member's question, I have to say the reason we are here and the reason we have the problem is because of the loose contracts made by that former government. There was no guarantee under those contracts that young people were going to be paid and we are endeavouring to do that -- in fact, we are going to do that -- before those contracts are given again. Before those contracts are let next year, we shall be assured that those people are going to be paid.

In direct response to the question, I made a commitment here in the House and I shall respond to and meet that commitment. The problem I am having is a little more complex than saying "Yes" and putting it in motion. Yes, I intend to do that. It is going to take a little longer because of the complexity, but the member can rest assured that all those young people are going to be paid for working for this government.

Mr. Morin-Strom: This is a serious problem affecting 145 workers, mainly students, who planted trees near Atikokan, Kapuskasing, Chapleau and Thunder Bay, but it also applies to others who worked for five other contractors across northern Ontario. This has been a problem for at least three years in this ministry. It is more than just ironing out wrinkles.

By what date will full pay be received by each worker who planted trees on the minister's behalf this summer across northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have made the commitment but I cannot give a time frame. As recently as in the last 15 minutes I have talked with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and he is bringing forward all of his pressure --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Listen. Where are my friends over there when I need them now that I am looking for help?

The matter is most serious. We shall address ourselves to it and immediately notify this House. I thought I would be doing that this week. I am disappointed that I cannot, but I will do it at the very earliest time.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Ferraro: My question is for the Minister of Education and pertains to the teachers' strike in my constituency which is approaching its 40th day and is affecting 8,200 students and their families.

I believed the Education minister when he said none of the students would lose his or her year as a result of this strike. Today, however, I have great cause for concern as a result of a radio broadcast in my municipality of Guelph that the University of Guelph plans to scrutinize on a case-by-case basis in particular those students in the semester system affected by the strike who make application to the University of Guelph.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Ferraro: I am coming to the question. The speculation is that the University of Western Ontario and the University of Toronto are going to have the same type of scrutiny.

What specific action is the Minister of Education prepared to take today, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), to assure the students who apply to all the colleges and universities in Ontario, and in particular to guarantee the families and students affected by this strike -- the innocent victims in Wellington county and Grey county -- that when they apply to the colleges and universities in Ontario they will not be subjected to any abnormal scrutiny by those institutions and will be treated the same as everybody else.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to indicate to my friend the member for Wellington South that I am aware of the situation in the ongoing dispute in Wellington county. I should indicate to him that the Council of Ontario Universities has made it clear that all reasonable efforts will be made by universities in Ontario to accommodate the students involved.

I repeat what I believe the members of the House know, that over many years of experience with Bill 100, no student in this province has lost a credit as a result of a secondary school dispute. In a statement released yesterday, the Council of Ontario Universities indicated again that it will undertake to ensure that students affected are treated very sensitively and reasonably.

I might add that this is yet another reason both parties in Wellington and Grey counties should take their local responsibilities seriously and return to the negotiating table to resolve these difficulties, so that the 13,000 students affected are not put in this kind of situation.

Mr. Ferraro: I am not quite sure whether I can go back to my taxpayers and students and say they are going to be treated the same. When they say "reasonably and sensitively," does that mean they are going to be subjected to something over and above someone from, for example, Windsor who is not on strike and makes an application to those universities and colleges?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Council of Ontario Universities said as recently as November 4 it will be very sensitive to the students involved and will look carefully at the situation of the applying students. l have every confidence that in this case the universities of this province will do what they have done in the past and be very supportive and reasonable in their treatment of the applications from those students.

As the honourable member knows, once the dispute is settled, not just the universities but the schools and school boards can take action to minimize the difficulties and damage done to the school system and to the students involved.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: As the member for Wellington South has said, tomorrow is the 40th day of this strike. Talks have broken off again but I understand they are rescheduled for Sunday.

In view of the fact that the board and the teachers have failed to reach a settlement in nearly two years, I am not optimistic they ever will reach a locally negotiated settlement. Will the minister invite both parties to meet with him and impress on them that they have a responsibility and obligation to the students of this province? Many of the young people are leaving the school system daily in frustration. For the sake of the students and parents, will the minister do that much?

Hon. Mr. Conway: As my friend from Mount Forest indicated in his question, the mediator will be returning with both parties to the negotiating table in Wellington on Sunday of next week. I hope between now and then my friends the members for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro), Grey (Mr. McKessock) and Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) will return to their constituencies and repeat my strongly held view that both local parties have a clear and discernible obligation to their students and their communities to return to the negotiating table and work this out between themselves.

I am quite happy to report to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel that in the case of Wellington both parties will be returning to the negotiating table with the mediator on Sunday.

3:20 p.m.

REPORT ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: Several weeks ago, the minister stated he would not fund private schools in this province, but today he has indicated to this House that he intends to hold hearings throughout the province. I would like to know the purpose of those hearings. What agenda will be on the table? Will it be Dr. Shapiro's report or will it be the minister's policy of not funding?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am delighted to have a question from my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre. What I said in Cobourg on December 19 and 20 and what I have said elsewhere in the course of this past three or four months is that within the context of Bill 30 we do not intend to fund private schools. At the present time, government policy is to complete the funding of the last part of the separate school system, which is constitutionally provided for and which has been receiving public funds in this province since the early 1840s.

I said in Cobourg and elsewhere that I would look forward to the receipt of Dr. Shapiro's report, which I am placing before the assembly today. It is a most interesting and wide-ranging report, and I am putting it before the Legislature and the province for consultation and response.

Mr. Davis: Does the minister not believe the people of Ontario will believe the hearings will become a sham since he and his government have already decided they will not fund private schools, yet they are asking people to come before a committee and express their concerns and interests?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I simply want to say to my critic from the official opposition that Dr. Shapiro is to be commended for an outstanding piece of work that I know will be of great interest to this assembly and the province. I am anxious for as wide a consultation on the 61 recommendations as possible. I know my friend the member for Scarborough Centre would be the first to agree that, given the range of recommendations, we as a Legislative Assembly would want to hear from the people on these particular recommendations. It is in that spirit I am putting it before the public for the consultation I have described.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. This morning we met in Sarnia with some concerned people who live not only in Sarnia area but also downriver from Sarnia. Contrary to what the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) said, their reaction is not hysterical; it is completely reasonable.

I would like to ask the minister why the people downriver from Sarnia should have any more confidence that the quality of their water is going to be protected when the people in charge of the investigation, in terms of how the cleanup is going to take place and what has caused this environmental disaster, are the same people who have been in charge for many years and who remain in charge.

What assurances can he give to us, as the people who represent these thousands of people, that we will go beyond simply sampling on occasion? How often and where will the sampling take place? Finally, I would like to ask the minister who is in charge --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe six questions are enough.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will pick a couple of them and see whether I can answer them.

The first question I heard was how can the people of the member's area have confidence if many of the same people who were involved previously are still involved. I can assure the member that I have given direction to our ministry at the very top level to undertake a wide variety of activities which involve a large number of people. Those people are here in the office in Toronto. They are involved in the laboratory. They are people who have been brought into that specific area and people in the area at the present time.

I want to say at this point no one from the ministry has been charged. I think the leader of the member's party referred to specific people who have been under investigation, but no one has been charged from our ministry. There is a co-ordinated effort taking place. I am aware of that effort. The senior members of my staff in Toronto are aware of that effort. I am confident the way it is proceeding at this time is such that we are taking every action necessary to ensure there is a cleanup as soon as possible and that the drinking water is kept safe.

Mr. Hayes: There is also another concern, and that is for the people on Walpole Island. We spoke to the Indian chief out there today. He was very much concerned about what is going to happen to their livelihood. They depend a lot on the wildlife, the tourists and the fishing industry. What is the minister prepared to do to assure these people that the wildlife, the fisheries and their tourist industry are going to be protected for them?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Without going into more great detail and being repetitious, in my statement I indicated a number of activities that will be undertaken. They are primarily concerned with ensuring that the water in the St. Clair River area is safe. They point to cleaning up what is there at the present time, in conjunction with Environment Canada, undertaking an investigation and a cleanup as soon as possible.

Those activities also relate to looking at what certificates of approval and what control orders are in effect at the present, looking at all the point sources and determining whether the certificates of approval and the control orders are adequate. If they are not, I clearly indicated that they would be changed drastically. We are also looking very carefully at investigating any possible migration of material from the old deep wells into areas where that material should not be.

We are undertaking a number of activities along there designed to clean up the river and to ensure that there is no more effluent going into it. I think those activities will be successful. I understand at the same time, however, the concern expressed by the people of Walpole Island or anywhere along there. They have a right to be concerned and they have a right to know what we are doing, and we are undertaking that action.

Mr. Mancini: I have great confidence that the new Minister of the Environment will clean up the mess he has inherited.

In order that all the people who live downriver be very well informed and be as knowledgeable as we are about this situation, will the minister undertake to write a detailed letter to every municipality that may be affected and to the local news media outlining what he has found, what he intends to do and what he has done up to now to ensure that the drinking water is safe?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think that is a very important activity for me to undertake and it is a very legitimate question. I can assure the member for Essex South that we will engage in widespread consultation and information with the people in the area and that I will tell them everything our government is doing to act on this most serious problem.

Mr. Hayes: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of privilege? What in the world could that be?

Mr. Hayes: I would like to ask the member to extend this information in those ridings --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HELP CENTRES

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development and it concerns the unemployment service centres that are supposed to be funded by his ministry and serve thousands of unemployed people across our province. My question is surrounding the situation where apparently his ministry has a different set of rules and funding criteria for each of these centres. Some centres are receiving 100 per cent interim funding and some are receiving 50 per cent matching funds. He personally told the St. Catharines centre it would receive 100 per cent funding and then four days later he changed his mind. He sent 100 per cent funding to the Brampton centre and then asked for it back.

Can the minister now tell this House what his policy is for funding the unemployment service centres? Is he going to make sure that these centres receive the funding in an equitable fashion right across the province?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The honourable member is receiving the wrong plain brown envelopes once again. I certainly at no time told the St. Catharines unemployed help centre that it would be receiving full funding. I met with representatives, I heard their problem and I was very sympathetic to their problem. I suggested that I would review the funding.

There was an interim period during the summertime when certain centres had extreme difficulties. This was when we were entering a new funding phase. The normal course is 50 per cent funding. There was a very difficult problem for certain centres and, in order to maintain those centres which were under threat of closure, we made centre-by-centre provisions to make sure all the centres could get over that difficult period and that they would maintain the good work they are doing in their communities.

Mr. Gillies: I suggest the problem goes a little deeper than the problems the centres are having. The minister wrote to the St. Catharines centre on October 21, saying, "The information you received from the ministry regarding interim funding was confusing, if not misleading." He knows there is a problem within the ministry in administering this program.

I would like to ask him specifically about a program administered through one of these centres. The Brantford centre, which is on the endangered list because of the funding difficulties, has been operating a food bank as one of its programs to aid some of the hardest-hit, most disadvantaged people in that community. The criteria the minister announced for the program indicate these centres should be moving in social assistance to people most in need.

Will the minister tell me why officials of his ministry told the centre it could not continue to operate the food bank under his ministry's grant? Will he --

Mr. Speaker: The minister. Order.

Mr. Gillies: Will he here and now --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I must confess I was not aware that ministry officials had ruled out the possibility of operating a food bank. I will look into it and report to the member. I do not think it is an activity which ought not to be conducted in appropriate circumstances. I am willing to look into it and make the appropriate accommodation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Has the minister responded to the request to meet with officials of the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ontario Federation of Labour about the unemployed centres in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I already have met with those representatives. I am not aware at this moment whether an additional request has been coming in. We are at this point reviewing a program which had a temporariness about it but which has become deeply rooted in the community. I am very sympathetic to the work the help centres are doing. I do not think they ought to become totally dependent on this government for funding. The funding arrangements which exist now are equitable, but we have to look further down the road. They are becoming very important to communities where the crisis of unemployment has hit harder than in other communities.

HOTLINE FOR BATTERED WOMEN

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister has been saying informally and outside this House that he "will make spaces on a temporary basis available" for any woman who is turned away from a battered women's shelter. Will the minister outline the steps being made to provide for battered women who call for assistance and cannot find shelter? Will he fill us in on who is co-ordinating and paying for these emergency assistance measures?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reality is that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is co-ordinating a program to ensure that anybody who responds to the Zenith telephone line as a result of the advertisements and is unable to find space will be referred to a situation where there is a space.

If there is no space available at the time -- it is a remote expectation because approximately only one in 10 requires space -- we have a supplementary list of private spaces outside of community homes and, if necessary, we are prepared to use rental accommodation for that purpose. No one will be turned away.

Ms. Gigantes: In the Ottawa area, Interval House can now cope with only about 100 women in need each year. The city of Ottawa's emergency shelters find now that 80 per cent of the people they serve are battered women, and the Ottawa area call number for battered women is answered in the city of Cornwall. How will emergency assistance be provided under circumstances such as these?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If a woman calls in and seeks a shelter location, she will be asked if she has attempted to contact a shelter. If she has done so and has failed to obtain accommodation, she will, after reference to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, be referred to a place in her community where there is a formal shelter space available, a private space or rental accommodation.

Mrs. Marland: If I may follow up on that question about the list to which the Attorney General has referred, would his ministry be willing, first of all, to share that list with every region?

Second, he refers to private space. I hope he is not listing motels under private space for these abused women and children. As well, when he talks about rental accommodation, can he explain what he means by rental accommodation in the light of the serious affordable housing problem?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If a woman phones the line and seeks a space, for example, in the Ottawa area or in Metropolitan Toronto, she will be in a community where there are a number of houses that have spaces. We do not expect her, and she is usually not able, to go from house to house either personally or by telephone. The Ministry of Community and Social Services will make the inquiry for her to determine whether there is a space available for her in that community.

If there is not, because on that night or in that week all spaces are taken, then we will make other spaces available. We have a list of spaces we think can be made available for those purposes. If necessary, we will go to hotel accommodation, but I do not think that step will be necessary.

The studies last time showed that only one in 10 seeking assistance actually required referral to a space. As a result of this program, under the previous government and now, we have found that the awareness the program has created has encouraged family and other supporters who would previously have shunned the applicant to have the courage to take in that applicant. The program is working. Like the previous government, I am very proud of it.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. McCague: The Treasurer is adjusting his stilts over there. I have a question for him.

Is it true that as a result of changes in federal income tax there will be $115 million more in revenues than is stated in his budget?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is interesting that the honourable member would ask the question. I have just received a paper dated November 7 that reads as follows:

"Through conversations with the federal officials we have learned that our personal-income-tax cash flow for this fiscal year will be between $70 million and $220 million higher than we were currently reporting. As a result of the higher personal income tax, established programs financing cash entitlements will be reduced by approximately $20 million to $70 million respectively."

In other words, these matters are being recalculated at both levels, and it appears to me that some additional revenue will be accruing to Ontario.

Mr. McCague: We are all hoping that the optimism of the Treasurer comes true.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Give him 10 years. The member will see what he does.

Mr. McCague: He just gestured like that as the member said that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Who did?

Mr. McCague: The Treasurer did.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, I did not.

Mr. McCague: I saw you.

In view of the fact that the Treasurer is going to have more money than he expected, will he now withdraw at least the price increase component of Bill 51, the gasoline tax bill, and save us all the time it will take to argue this bill in this House and then have him withdraw it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not prepared to do as the honourable member suggests.

3:40 p.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding Falconbridge and the processing of uranium under the guise of nickel. Since the uranium and nickel contain uranium 35 to 40 times higher than that used at Elliot Lake, since no precautions were taken by Falconbridge to process that uranium, and since there was no effort to warn the workers they were working with uranium, can the minister tell me why the ministry is hiding behind federal jurisdiction in order not to move in and prosecute Falconbridge for violating all those parts of the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am informed that the Ministry of Labour is involved in some discussions right now with the Atomic Energy Control Board regarding uranium. Although we are involved in those discussions, they are matters under federal jurisdiction in particular. If the allegations made by the honourable member are correct, perhaps we should be looking at it from another direction. I will simply indicate to the member that I will check into the problem and get back to him.

Mr. Mantel: I have had from the ministry, signed by the minister, a six-page report that says, "On this basis, the ministry lacks the authority to issue orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act." Since the AECB is responsible for mining, and this is not a mining process, and since it is scrap metal from out of the country being reprocessed at Falconbridge, can the minister tell me who is going to protect the workers?

When will the minister be prepared to take on the federal government and tell them that they have acted in contravention of our Occupational Health and Safety Act and that we are going to protect the workers by prosecuting promptly?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am sure my friend the member for Sudbury East is alluding to one of the many letters I have sent him. The member seemed to begin to back off -- perhaps I heard him wrongly -- in the supplementary question with some suggestion that it might be a matter where, if the federal government is not doing the protecting, we should be. I agree with him that workers at Falconbridge should not be unprotected because of some kind of jurisdictional dispute. That being the case, we will sort the matter out rapidly, and I give him my assurance that I will give it my personal attention to ensure someone is protecting those workers.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Bossy: I would like to present the following petition on behalf of the members of Council 1412, Knights of Columbus, of the city of Chatham and my constituents in the constituency of Chatham-Kent:

"To the Honourable, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay."

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

This petition has been signed by 234 constituents.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a petition.

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985."

It is signed by Grand Knight Brian Levis of St. Joseph's Council 7645, Clinton, Ontario, dated October 10, 1985.

Mr. Hayes: I have a petition to present on behalf of Council 8783, Pointe-aux-Roches, Ontario.

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

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

"Whereas it is the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and

"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841" -- I do not think it is necessary to read the whole petition.

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay."

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

Mr. Epp: I wish to table a petition from Maryhill, Ontario, from Council 6024, Knights of Columbus, which has a good number of names on it, and a more voluminous brief from Our Lady of Lourdes School in the great city of Waterloo, which has more than 100 names on it with regard to the same topic, separate school funding.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. D. R. Cooke from the select committee on economic affairs presented the committee's interim report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I wish to say that this report is the interim report required by this House when the terms of reference were set out in July.

I might say at the outset that the work of the committee over the course of time, in July, August, September and October, has been a highlight in my brief, six-month political career. I believe the work of this committee is the most thorough public work on this issue being done at the present time in Canada. The co-operation of members of all three parties has been very good and very intense. I expect it will continue to be the same.

I ask that one message be received, if only one can be at this time. On such a complex issue, please do not make the mistake of suggesting that the select committee on economic affairs is either for or against free trade, because it is not that simple.

On motion by Mr. D. R. Cooke, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

Resolved, that supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Office of the Assembly program, $44,600,600.

3:50 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Pauline McGibbon Cultural Centre.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse Foundation.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting the Pauline McGibbon Cultural Centre, and Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Mr. Nixon moved that further to the order of the House dated October 26, 1985, the estimates of the Office of the Chief Election Officer, omitted from the allocation statement printed in the Orders and Notices paper, stand referred to the standing committee on general government to be considered before the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, November 18, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 54,

An Act to authorize and regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs.

Motion agreed to.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 55,

An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs.

Motion agreed to.

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 56,

An Act to provide for the Observance of Remembrance Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: The purpose of this bill is to make November 11 an official holiday under the Employment Standards Act and the Education Act.

Unfortunately, November 11 has been downgraded since the Ministry of Education eliminated it as a school holiday in 1982, and I believe we should observe it as a general holiday.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 72, 73, 74 and 77 and responses to petitions presented to the House, sessional papers 188 and 191, standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, November 8.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Allen moved second reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes; if he wishes to reserve any of that time, he may.

Mr. Allen: The length of one's remarks is always a little bit unpredictable, but if there is some time left, I will be happy to reserve that to make further remarks at the conclusion of the debate.

The two items I want to raise before the House in the course of these amendments to the act pose some fundamental questions of democratic accountability in a system of government such as ours. The purposes of the amendments in question are (1) to provide for the election of the regional chairman by general vote rather than by the members of the regional council and (2) to give the regional council, rather than the cabinet, the right to appoint a majority of the members of the Hamilton-Wentworth police board.

The first item is a matter that has animated many people in our region from the onset of regional government in that region in 1974. It seems to them to be a singularly unusual fact of their political life that while they may elect persons to represent them by wards in school board elections and in municipal elections for a city council, while they may elect mayors of their city, and while they may elect provincial and federal representatives and have a

part in the election and selection of a known leader by that process at the provincial and federal levels, when it comes to the regional municipality by which they are governed increasingly as that system of government becomes consolidated, they have no direct say in the election of the regional chairman.

On the second item, it has been a matter of some concern of municipalities across this province, and certainly of my own, that they have not had the right to elect a majority of the members of the board of police commissioners, which governs their local forces of law and order, even though in most instances, and certainly in our case, the budget of that board is either one of the largest or next to the largest in size.

Having said that, I want to review briefly the history of this issue in our regional politics. It is only when one sees how persistent has been the request for these amendments -- for the first one in particular, with regard to the general election of the chairman of the regional government in the Hamilton-Wentworth area -- that one appreciates how deeply felt is the concern of our region that the position should be a generally elected one.

From the first day of regional government in that region, a large majority of the aldermen who make up the Hamilton council have consistently expressed their concerns that there should be such a general election of that position. That call has come from aldermen of all parties.

4 p.m.

Second, with regard to status, there may be more at stake for the mayor of Hamilton than for any other single elected official in the sense that when a Hamilton-Wentworth regional chairman becomes a generally elected post, that is obviously a very much more enhanced political position. The result is going to be that there will be, in some measure, an eclipsing of local mayors in the region. None the less, the mayor of that city and the mayors of other towns and municipalities in the area have gone on record as supporting this proposal.

To them, it simply makes sense that a level of government which has become, as time has passed, so much more important in the lives of all the citizens of that area should, as in this cases, be an elected position.

Third, while for some time the regional council itself did not take a formal position on this matter, none the less, after repeated debates they voted overwhelmingly on April 6, 1983, to support the general election of the regional chairman. The person who ought to know most about that position and what is required for its legitimacy and potency as an effective position in our government, the regional chairman herself, Mrs. Anne Jones, had by that time become firmly convinced that the legitimacy of the position did finally have to rest upon a general election of the regional chairmanship.

In particular, she felt that after the three-year term of office in municipal government was put in place, it became not only an ideal but also a very practical and practicable proposition. In the fall of 1982, she was convinced, based on her own experience, as she put it, "Election at large would give this office more political influence and credibility." She went on to add, "The public is not happy with a chairman elected simply by council."

The Hamilton Spectator, the paper which serves the entire region, has for some years been a supporter of this proposal. In turn, it has reflected the widespread disappointment of the region when, after the council decision of April 6 to move unanimously in this direction, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) made his views known on this subject in general when he reacted to proposals in the Metropolitan Toronto region that perhaps there might be an elected chairman of Metro council. At that point, the member made it clear he had little sympathy for this suggestion, not only in Toronto but also anywhere else the idea might be proposed. He poured cold water on it.

The Hamilton Spectator blamed what it called the cozy arrangement by which regional chairmen were put in place at that point in Ontario, and went on to suggest that Paul Godfrey, in a rather self-serving statement when asked why there should not be regionally elected chairmen, really pointed out the reason there should be. Mr. Godfrey said a publicly elected regional chairman would become far more political and lose his independence. He went on to say, "An elected regional chairman would be forced to make popular decisions."

It certainly is a new twist in democracy, as I hear it, when it is suggested that the election of an official is apt to produce popular decisions. I would have thought that was precisely the point of having elected officials. They might be more likely to make decisions that would consort with the popular mind at large when it had reflected on the issue in question.

However, Toronto is not the issue here and Mr. Godfrey's reasons are not at issue here. My point in presenting these amendments is simply to suggest we do not need to have the same arrangement in each of our municipalities for the selection of the regional chairman. One reason the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing alleged it was impossible to move ahead on it is that if one did it in one place, one had to do it in another. Quite obviously, the circumstances of Hamilton-Wentworth are very different from those of Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton region or what have you.

Each should be judged in turn and each should have a right to decide the mode by which it wishes to see itself governed in that position.

Continuing the campaign in Hamilton in the late summer and early fall of 1983, the New Democratic Party caucus at city hall decided it would undertake a local petition to test public opinion and see where it led us on that subject. In the course of late August and early September, petitions were gathered in shopping malls, on street corners, at the Labour Day parade and elsewhere.

While this was not a massive undertaking to poll the whole of the region, it did have significant results. In the first place, 8,000 names were gathered, and in the second place, at least 90 per cent of those who were asked responded affirmatively. It was obvious that the opinion regionally was very positive on this issue. After this petition, it was no longer a matter of saying it was the view of a few regional councillors or the view of certain aldermen. It obviously had widespread public support.

That petition was presented to this House by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and me later that fall. That same fall, on November 9, Bill 116 was introduced by Eric Cunningham, the former member for Wentworth North, who argued strongly for the general election of the regional chairman.

Early that winter, the member for Hamilton Mountain took advantage of the fact that the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act was before the House for certain amendments to propose this additional amendment once more. Once again it failed to pass, by virtue of the obduracy of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Finally, in the fall of 1984 the region sought to place before this Legislature a private bill that would accomplish that objective and the second objective I have in my bill. On a technicality, it went to the standing committee on procedural affairs for a judgement about whether it was proper for a private bill to be entered in the House with respect to a matter that was embodied in a public bill. It was by a lot of argumentation about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin that the bill --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is 10.

Mr. Allen: Ten. Is that right? I am glad to have it on the minister's authority.

This issue was finally put to one side at that time, but the arguments were pretty questionable and rather spurious. They really amounted to asking whether, because this bill was a private bill and would not be gazetted in the same way as a public bill would be, the public might be confused about the result of the House's decision on the matter. So, on such picayune considerations the matter was put to one side.

When that happened, I in turn introduced a private member's bill to get the matter before the House. That is the way this bill has finally come to us today.

The Hamilton council, in the wake of that failure, again moved unanimously to put this proposal yet a further stage forward by entering it on the municipal ballot for November 1985. Stoney Creek, Ancaster and Dundas followed suit. Glanbrook and Flamborough, the other two municipalities that make up the regional municipality and which support the proposal, did not bother to take that step, but that was not to be read as meaning they did not themselves support the proposal.

Finally, with the election of a new government after May, the regional council moved once more within a week of the election to state, "We will try again with the new government to secure the election by the general public of the regional chairman." It declared that the public has a right to a direct say about who will head this level of government. The system of council's choice by individuals elected on a very restricted franchise is a direct infringement of public rights.

4:10 p.m.

My colleagues the members for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and, I hope, other members of this House will perhaps reflect on the important principles that underlie this step. However, certain objections have been made to the proposal by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), none of which stands up in my mind. I have already referred to the first with regard to the gazetting and the publicity attending the passage of a private bill. The second had to do with whether all regional municipalities have to be treated the same. I have already made my observations on that.

The third was that there was no tidal wave of opinion launching us forward towards this great goal. He made that observation with respect to Toronto in particular. I think my observations make it quite plain that there certainly is a small tidal wave in the Hamilton-Wentworth region on this matter.

Then he went on to suggest that it was too costly. Others have suggested it is not covered by the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses since municipal expenses are not covered and, therefore, a selected clientele would be able to reach this position. One would have to say that the costs for most of the mayors of the region -- the mayor of Hamilton, for example -- in seeking election are not prohibitive and the current chairman's own reflections on this are that it is not a prohibitive matter.

As far as the election expenses commission is concerned, if we find it is a costly affair, then so be it. We can amend the appropriate legislation to provide electoral expense support if that is necessary in following the logical principles of democratic government to their proper conclusions.

With respect to the second part of the bill, I want to be rather less lengthy in my remarks. The reversal of the proportions of responsibility in the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Commissioners of Police to provide for three rather than two elected by the regional council is a matter that has been before the municipalities and the municipalities have put it before the government for a long time. I want to say briefly why I think this is a very important matter. It raises the same questions of local accountability that the election of the regional chairman does and that is why it is coupled with it in this bill.

What we are proposing is to repeal the provisions under clauses 91(1)(

a) and 91(1)(

b) of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act where the province appoints three of the five members of the board and to replace them with clauses by which the region will appoint three of the five.

I want to say at the outset that this is not offered as any criticism of the existing board in either the mode or character of its activity or of any of the members of that board, whether they be appointed regionally or provincially. The reason ought to be obvious. When that board is the vehicle of expending in the Hamilton-Wentworth region more money than any other department or regional government other than social services, it is quite obvious where the balance of responsibility ought to lie.

I point out that this proposal has been supported in this House by members of the Liberal and the New Democratic parties, at least, when it has come up for debate.

When in 1983, Bill 86 was before the House to amend the membership of the police boards so that judges no longer were required to sit on them, it was suggested by the then member for Simcoe Centre, G. W. Taylor, who was proposing that amendment, that the purpose was to make appointments to those boards in a more flexible way, that it was in line with today's thinking to keep judges away from duty in matters respecting the police and that the matter did not require a lot of argumentation or elaboration.

Likewise, I think my point does not require a lot of elaboration. When the then member for Riverdale, Mr. Renwick, from this party, tried to propose in that debate that perhaps we should alter the proportions so that there would be three members selected regionally rather than two, the minister was not prepared to accept that at the time. I note in glancing through the debate that the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), who was in this House a moment ago, strongly supported this proposal.

By way of concluding my remarks, I will read from the contribution of the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) to that debate since I think he put his finger on a very practical side of this issue when he said, "I guess even those who felt it was somehow dangerous to have the democratically elected people in the majority on police commissions in our part of the province started to think twice when, I think it was two years ago, we had a bill presented to the regional council to the tune of a 22 per cent increase" in budget from the police board.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Did I say that?

Mr. Allen: Yes. He went on to suggest that the regional municipality of Niagara was looking at various areas at that time where it could keep expenditures under control. He said it was "mighty difficult to ask the head of the engineering department, the planning department or one of the other departments to hold his or her expenditures within, let us say, five, six or seven per cent when the police commission presents a bill for an increase of 21 or 22 per cent in the allotment of funds."

I am not suggesting that has been the habit of the board of police commissioners in the Hamilton-Wentworth region, but the fact that can happen without the body being responsible to the regional council which has to approve and finance that undertaking makes the point very obviously. With that, I rest my case with regard to both the aspects of the bill I presented.

Mr. Ward: I am pleased to join the debate on Bill 39 which has been sponsored by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). It is not the first but about the seventh time I have participated in this debate. For the past seven years I have been a member of the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council, and this issue has been before the regional council as well as the councils of the local area municipalities during the course of the past several years since regional government was introduced in Hamilton-Wentworth.

To set the member's mind at rest, I do intend to speak in support of this bill. It is certainly a long overdue change. The reasons that have been given about the democratic process and the philosophical arguments for such a move have been quite well enunciated by the member. Perhaps they should not be dwelt upon any further. I would like to speak about some of the arguments posed both for and against legislation such as this. I speak from personal experience with regard to many of these.

The debates which have gone on in the area and regional councils have identified problems such as the large geographic area in which a regional chairman would have to run for election and the cost of the campaigns. It has been suggested it would be rather difficult to find candidates, and that it would be an expensive proposition. It has been suggested also that an area municipality that makes up 70 per cent of the population and 70 per cent of the voters of the region would have an undue advantage in such a situation. I do not believe any of these arguments has merit.

On the geographic size of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, there are communities throughout this province, in the north in particular, which encompass much larger geographic areas than the 250 square miles of Hamilton-Wentworth.

On the cost of campaigning, I do not believe for a minute it would be any more expensive to run for the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth than it would be to run for mayor in Hamilton. The media serve all of those area municipalities. There is one daily newspaper, one television station and three radio stations. During the course of municipal election campaigns, anybody campaigning in any one of those area municipalities has to make use of those media. One ends up reaching a lot larger market than it is often necessary to reach. I do not believe the arguments about the cost of campaigning have any merit whatsoever.

4:20 p.m.

On the domination by one area municipality, it is worth noting that the council of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth is made up of 27 members, consisting of 17 members of Hamilton city council and two each from the five other area municipalities. At any given time, as members can see, the city of Hamilton outnumbers the outlying municipalities in voting strength on a basis of 17 to 10. I personally believe that anybody who was seeking office by way of a general vote would hardly write off 30 per cent of the electorate in his campaign.

With regard to the suggestion that nobody would be interested in seeking such a position, I find it rather odd that I have been approached by the former mayor of Dundas and urged that this legislation be passed before this municipal election because he was interested in seeking office. I have been approached by the mayor of Stoney Creek, who is interested in seeking office, and I certainly do not believe there would be any lack of candidates for such a powerful position.

The arguments in favour of this particular bill are really philosophic and relate very clearly to the democratic process. This whole business of its being a precedent that would force us to see the election of regional chairmen in all other regions in Ontario has very little merit. Each regional municipality act in Ontario is different from the others. Regional municipality acts supersede all the provisions of the Municipal Act unless otherwise stated.

If one examines closely all the regional municipality acts, one will find that each region approaches its problems differently. For instance, I believe the region of Peel and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth sought amendments so that their boards of health would become committees of regional council. They sought this change by way of resolution to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of the day. He saw fit to consent to those changes, and those municipalities now have their boards of health under the control of committees of council.

Throughout the Municipal Act and throughout the municipal government structure in this province, there is a tremendous amount of latitude in how a municipality determines the form and structure of municipal government. In many instances public utility commissions are appointed by council; in other municipalities they are appointed by a general vote. Some municipalities elect their aldermen at large; others elect their aldermen by the ward system.

Municipalities have the opportunity to determine the size of their municipal council. In my own case, when the region was formed in 1974, my municipality. Flamborough, had an 11-member council. Two years ago we sought a change, which was consented to by the Ontario Municipal Board, a reduction in the size of council. At that time there was no objection. Obviously, we were given the latitude. I think it was conceded that we had the ability and the right to determine what was best for ourselves.

Last January the township of Flamborough became the town of Flamborough, again with the consent of the Ontario Municipal Board.

All these may seem to be small issues, but the one thing to which they do consistently point is that municipalities are in the best position to determine what is best for them by way of the local government structure.

Within the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, the responsibilities of the region extend into all aspects of life in the municipalities. The region has responsibility for the overall planning and land use patterns within the region. It has responsibility for the arterial roads and the important transportation systems. It has exclusive responsibility for social services and for local health care services.

The job is just too important to let the position of regional chairman be solely in the hands of the regional council to elect indirectly. I believe the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth have the intelligence and the maturity to determine who can best fill this powerful and influential position.

In all the debates in which I have taken

part in this issue, I have yet to hear one good reason the regional chairman in Hamilton-Wentworth cannot be elected at large by the citizens. It might not be what is best for Metro Toronto or Peel or Haldimand-Norfolk, but it is what is best for the region of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The citizens of our region feel very strongly about this. They overwhelmingly support this initiative. The plebiscite really has no statutory authority; it is nothing more than a sampling of opinion. However, I have no doubt that when the votes are tallied on November 12 in the area municipalities of Stoney Creek, Dundas, Hamilton and Ancaster, the results will be in the neighbourhood of three or four to one in favour of such a move.

I would like to draw a couple of minor concerns to the attention of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). They will certainly not cause me to withhold my support for the bill.

First, there is a reference to the makeup of the council. I would like to remind the member that the area municipality of Flamborough has been a town since January 1, 1985, and not a township. It is not a big thing, but it is to me as former mayor.

Second, in repealing subsections 11(1), (2) and (3), provision is made only for the replacement of the regional chairman by way of a general election within the region should a vacancy occur. If we revert to the conditions in the Municipal Act, if a vacancy occurs prior to March 31 in an election year, there is an election automatically. If it occurs after that, then the council has an opportunity to make some determination.

Mrs. Marland: It is a privilege for me to speak on Bill 39. I speak with some experience as a former councillor in the region of Peel for some seven years.

I take note at the outset of the comments from the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward). He has acknowledged that there is a plebiscite taking place in the municipal election, as I understand, in four out of six of the communities in Hamilton-Wentworth. I would suggest to both of the previous speakers on this bill today that possibly their comments might be somewhat pre-emptive to the results of those plebiscites on Tuesday. It is disappointing to hear a member say they will be nothing more than a sampling of opinion and suggest they will have no value. I would like to think the purpose of having them is for public input and therefore they would be of value.

No matter what the outcome of the second reading of this bill may be, I would recommend that prior to third reading the bill should be forwarded to the six area municipalities involved in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and to the other 11 regional governments in the province. I do not see anywhere where it is said that this will not be an example for the other regional governments to follow. I do not see where it is exclusive to being an example that will then be automatically enforced throughout the province.

4:30 p.m.

First and foremost, the referral of that bill to the municipalities involved is terribly important. It is my understanding they have not been formally involved at this point or that there has been public input until the result at least of the ballot on Tuesday.

In essence, the bill is of the democratic principle and it sounds good in theory. It should be pointed out that there were comments today attributable to the present regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth. There are 12 regional councils in this province, but the chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth is the only chairman who supports the election of regional chairmen at large. I would suggest, with respect, that is somewhat significant.

The practical implications of this bill are unrealistic and unworkable, especially in Hamilton-Wentworth. This region consists of six municipalities representing approximately 600,000 people. The election of a regional chairman at large would not be democratic or representative of the whole region's needs, as the probability would be that the decision would be weighted in favour of the candidate from the largest municipality.

An elected regional chairman would have difficulty not responding to the concerns of those who have contributed the greatest number of votes to his election. He would be politically tied to one specific part of the region. That could be very interesting.

That is particularly so in the region of Peel, which is made up of the municipality of Mississauga and the municipalities of Brampton and Caledon. Mississauga is a community of 360,000 people. Brampton has 160,000 and Caledon 20,000. In Peel region right now, we are dealing with the siting of a sanitary landfill site. Would it not be interesting for a regional chai