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

October 15, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY EXPLORATION

RURAL ELECTRICITY RATES

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS BILL

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS BILL

GAS FURNACE VALVES

JEUX CANADA GAMES

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

WEST PATRICIA LAND-USE PLAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

INTEREST RATES

USER FEES

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

MEASLES

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

HEALTH ESTIMATES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS ACT

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT

TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

TERMINAL OPERATORS SAFEGUARD ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL SUNSHINE ACT

SEATBELTS

MUNICIPAL SUNSHINE ACT

SEATBELTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if you could report to the House the results of your investigation with the Premier (Mr. Davis) or the Premier's office on the lack of the tabling of a compendium in support of his statement on Tuesday of the government's intention to purchase 25 per cent of Suncor Incorporated with $650 million of our funds.

I know, sir, you are aware of the rule in this House, standing order 26(c), that calls for the tabling of such a compendium after a statement from the ministry. This is one of special importance, since other members of the House will surely be called on not only to respond with their own views but also to be able to prepare an opinion based on the facts that were available to the government as they moved to a decision.

It is extremely important in this instance as well as in others that the rules be followed, and you undertook to investigate that. Two days have now gone by, and we anxiously await the tabling of a compendium of the information that led the Premier and at least some of his colleagues to come to the conclusion that that course of action was proper.

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) that I do not have that information as yet. However, as soon as I do have it, it will be made available.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege dealing with your memorandum to the members of the Legislature, dated September 22, 1981, and dealing with constituency offices. I congratulate you for having forwarded this memo to all the members. It is an issue that I had raised back in February 1981.

I read from your memo that you are suggesting that all activities in relation to constituency offices should be strictly nonpartisan. Then you go on to talk about constituency office signs. One of the things you say is that the sign must not display the name of a political party.

This memo came out on September 22, 1981, and I know you have had correspondence with some members in relation to the application of this memo. It was suggested in some of your correspondence that the purpose of the memo was especially to advise new members to make sure not to have any party association or party activity related to the constituency office.

It has come to my attention that one senior member in this House -- and who would you guess it would be, of all the members in this House? -- the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), still has a billboard up on Bank Street, one of the main streets in Ottawa, next to Lansdowne Park. I will send you a photo of the billboard, which clearly reads: "Claude Bennett, MPP, Ottawa South, PC" -- with the PC logo in large letters -- "Constituency Office." And then it gives the phone number.

In my opinion, this act by a senior member of the government, and he is certainly a senior member in the House, is a clear breach of the guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy. I trust that you will give the message to the member for Ottawa South, and give it very clearly; possibly the most effective way of doing it would be to send him a notice with his first cheque for accommodation allowance for his luxurious home in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Ottawa East for drawing this matter to my attention.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, can I ask speak on the same point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think it has been dealt with. Do you have a specific matter?

Ms. Copps: I have a specific point of order regarding another minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre with a point of order.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the member for Ottawa East: I would like to bring to the attention of the Speaker that he might also contact the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and advise him that his constituency office is not the office of the government, as has been translated in Portuguese and several other languages. In fact, his is a constituency office, which is duly translatable in Portuguese, Chinese and other languages.

If you go and take a look at his constituency office, you will see that he calls it the office of the "governo," which it is not, and I would like to advise the Speaker that that also should be altered.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Hamilton Centre for drawing this matter to my attention.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY EXPLORATION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ontario Energy Corporation announced its intention to explore for oil and gas offshore in Hudson Bay. Today I would like to provide the members of the Legislative Assembly with a few details of the agreement.

Under the terms of an exploration agreement issued by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Ontario Energy Resources Limited, a subsidiary of the Ontario Energy Corporation, and two other partners, Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited and Sogepet Limited, have undertaken a five-year seismic and possible drilling program offshore in Hudson Bay. The first 18-month seismic program will begin next summer at an initial cost of $7.6 million. The total project could involve expenditures of up to $50 million in 1981 dollars. The partners to the joint venture each hold a 33.3 per cent interest.

The area to be explored is enormous -- 72 million acres -- and is as large as the North and Baltic Seas combined. In fact, it is believed to be the largest single exploratory parcel of land ever granted in Canada.

This is Canada's best-situated offshore frontier area in a logistic sense. The exploration area is very accessible and a favourable site for exploration or drilling. Ice conditions are seasonal. The average water depth is only 600 feet.

2:10 p.m.

The region is accessible by two railway systems and a seasonally functioning deepsea harbour with a sea route to the North Atlantic. South coast ports for any offshore fluid hydrocarbon production would be within 600 miles by pipeline distance to Lake Superior ports and approximately 1,000 miles to Toronto. Any significant finds made in Hudson Bay would offer considerable comparative advantages in terms of shorter development time and delivery to market time, and for lower capital costs than the other offshore frontiers in Canada.

Extensive geological and geophysical work already has been conducted in the bay, and geological evidence suggests that the hydrocarbon reserves could be substantial. The Ontario Energy Corporation and its partners, however, do not expect to begin drilling until the fifth year of activity.

In terms of job creation, only a few people will be employed during the initial seismic surveys as the manpower requirements are minimal. With encouraging seismic results, however, the fifth year will see a takeoff in manpower requirements as wells are drilled and onshore services are required.

The exploration licence issued by the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources incorporates strict environmental controls regarding seismic work and exploratory drilling. Other environmental protection is provided under the regulations followed under the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. The fifth year of the agreement also provides for more than $1 million in studies, including environmental impact assessments.

Finding a significant and dependable source of oil or natural gas in Hudson Bay could open up a new energy supply for Ontario and Canada generally, reducing our dependence on costly imported fuels.

Mr. Foulds: Are you taking equity on any findings?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We are a partner.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RURAL ELECTRICITY RATES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have another announcement. I wish to advise the House that later today I will be introducing legislation which will take a further step in keeping with this government's commitment to reduce the differential in residential electrical bills between rural and urban service.

With this legislation, which amends the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro will be authorized to reduce the differential between the average rural residential bill and the average urban bill to 15 per cent, effective January 1, 1982.

Mr. J. A. Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If this is a ministerial statement, is there any reason why the energy critic does not have a copy of the statement?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It could be because the honourable member's leader has it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: My package might have been packaged in error.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Did the member get a copy of the one on exploration?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is part of that statement.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is not there.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member should just read on. It is part of that statement. While we are having this exchange, there it is in the envelope. His leader has found it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Although the cost of distributing electricity in rural areas is much higher than in urban areas, a reduction of the rate differential to 15 per cent is both necessary and reasonable.

The action we are taking today is consistent with an Ontario Hydro report I tabled last November which was prepared at the request of the Premier. The report recommended the differential be targeted to 15 per cent.

Members of the House know that the first step in meeting the Premier's commitment to bring rural bills more in line with urban bills was a special $20-million grant to Ontario Hydro for 1981. With this action, Ontario Hydro was able to reduce the annual cost of electricity paid by year-round rural residents during 1981 by approximately 540.

Members of the House will recall that this grant was an interim step pending further action for the year 1982. Today, we are taking that action with the introduction of this legislation.

Each year, more of the densely populated parts of rural Ontario are becoming part of our municipalities. Therefore, the rural cost burden is being shared by a decreasing number of people in our more sparsely settled areas. This is evident in data which show that some 95,000 rural customers became customers of municipal utilities during the last five years.

The percentage of Ontario electrical consumers served by municipal utilities is steadily increasing. This government is committed to the continuation of the municipal utility philosophy which has served this province so well over the last 75 years.

In order to lower the electrical bill of the rural resident, the legislation will allow Ontario Hydro to collect approximately $34 million in 1982 from all of its customers, increasing bulk power costs by one per cent to 1.5 per cent.

All members of the House will be interested to know that approximately 530,000 rural residents across Ontario will have their hydro bills reduced.

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure this afternoon in announcing that I will be introducing a bill entitled the International Bridges' Municipal Payment Act, 1981.

The proposed legislation establishes long-run provincial policy on payment in lieu of property taxes to be made by the international bridge authorities and commissions to municipalities in which these bridges are situated.

The proposed legislation will require all bridge commissions or authorities named in the act to make full payments in lieu of property taxes, excluding educational levies, on all real property excepting the bridge spans themselves.

Also, the formula as set out in the bill provides for a lump sum payment by each authority or commission in addition to payments in lieu using assessed value of real property and prevailing mill rates in each municipality concerned. This payment is in place of any assessment on the bridge spans themselves.

Both the lump sum payments and the payment in lieu will be phased in over a three-year period, and the provincial government will assist with the financing of the total payments in lieu during this phase-in period.

Existing legislation governing the Blue Water Bridge Authority is repealed and replaced by this legislation, which will also govern all financial arrangements covering bridges operated by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.

I believe this bill offers a comprehensive policy for the payment in lieu of taxes to be made for the international bridges named in the act.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I will also introduce the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Bill.

As members may recall, on November 18, 1980, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) moved first reading of Bill 197. That legislation was the product of a policy review begun in the year 1978 in response to briefs submitted to the government by spokesmen for both urban and rural municipalities. These briefs called for an alternative to what had often become costly and bitter confrontations between the Ontario Municipal Board over annexation and amalgamation.

The government responded to these briefs on August 1979 by presenting a proposal for a new procedure modelled on labour-management bargaining techniques. This negotiated process was then successfully pilot-tested in the Brantford-Brant area and later employed in discussions between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil.

Legislation to implement the comprehensive agreement reached in Brant was passed by the Legislature last June. It will be my pleasure to introduce a bill to the House in the next few weeks to implement a similar agreement between the city of Barrie and the township of Innisfil. I hope that legislation will end years of discussion and controversy in that part of our province.

The members may recall as well that, before introducing Bill 197 last fall, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs released a position paper setting out a refined version of the new procedure. This paper reflected the experience gained in the Brantford test as well as the discussions held over the summer of 1980 with a working group representing Ontario's three municipal associations.

The revised version of the bill which I will be placing before the members incorporates further suggestions from this working group, along with suggestions from individual municipalities and municipal associations. The draft was extensively reviewed with the working group on October 7 of this year and met with general support at the meeting of the Municipal Liaison Committee on October 9.

The bill simplifies the strengths and negotiated procedures set out in Bill 197. It also renders --

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will share a copy of his statement with the critics. I have a compendium here on the boundary thing, but I do not have a copy of the ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that copies of both the compendium and the statement were being issued to the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker: Will you make sure the member for Waterloo North is supplied with a copy?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will, sir.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: If we did not get one, I am sure the New Democratic Party did not get one either.

Mr. Speaker: It would appear nobody got a copy. Mr. Minister, will you see they are distributed immediately, please?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Fine, Mr. Speaker. I will defer it until tomorrow if that is what they wish.

2:20 p.m.

GAS FURNACE VALVES

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise members of a general warning letter being distributed to all gas furnace customers in Ontario -- about one million gas furnace customers -- beginning today.

Recent investigations by the natural gas industry, in co-operation with the technical standards division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, have shown that residential gas furnaces equipped with certain White-Rodgers valves may intermittently malfunction. While the likelihood of failure is extremely rare, we are concerned about the potential of these furnaces overheating and causing fires.

The White-Rodgers valves in question are in the model 36B series -- not unlike the one I have in front of me -- and they have been used on gas furnaces manufactured by several companies. These companies and their product names are listed in the letter being mailed to gas furnace customers with their next utility bills.

The general warning letter explains how consumers can quickly check whether their furnaces are equipped with a White-Rodgers valve.

If the valve is date-coded 7630 to 7752 -- which means the valve was produced in 1976 or 1977 -- the consumer is urged to contact a local heating contractor, the furnace manufacturer or the White-Rodgers company. White-Rodgers will replace these valves at no charge to the consumer.

If the valve is a White-Rodgers but outside the 7630 to 7752 date codes, the manufacturer will replace the valve at a special price of approximately $37 plus labour. It should be noted that we have no evidence that valves outside the 7630 to 7752 date codes are prone to malfunction.

The general warning letter also explains how the home owner can determine whether his gas furnace is likely to overheat.

We have already notified heating contractors, furnace manufacturers and gas utilities of this potential problem so that they can respond promptly to consumer inquiries.

I wish to stress that we are committed to the basic principle that any costs imposed on the unsuspecting consumer should be borne by the responsible business or industry. Consequently, we expect the industry, through its own arrangements with White-Rodgers and as part of good customer relations, to absorb any furnace inspection charges and long-distance collect calls for consumers who have White-Rodgers valves in their gas furnaces.

JEUX CANADA GAMES

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, this past summer the city of Thunder Bay and Ontario had the privilege of hosting for the first time the Jeux Canada Games. The 1981 Summer Games were a tremendous success, and today in your gallery we have with us some of the men and women who did so much to make them so special.

As all honourable members can appreciate, an event as big and complicated as the Jeux Canada Games, involving some 3,000 athletes from 10 provinces and two territories in 17 sports, takes years of dedication to plan and stage.

In Thunder Bay, thousands of volunteers pulled together under the guidance of the Jeux Canada Games Society to make these games happen. They set out to make the games the best ever and they succeeded.

The society's efforts revolved around two men in particular, and together they represent an extraordinary community effort that deserves the congratulations and thanks of every member of this House. It is therefore my pleasure to present to honourable members Mr. Bruce Walker, the president of the 1981 Jeux Canada Games Society, and Mr. Taras Kozyra, the society's general manager.

These gentlemen and the remarkably dedicated group with whom they worked set a magnificent stage in Thunder Bay, but it was the competition played out on that stage that was the very heart of the games themselves. When that 14 days of competition was finished, our very own Ontario team was at the top of the standings, the winner of the coveted Canada Summer Games flag.

Ontario athletes and teams were contenders in every sport and the winners of many. But in swimming some achievements were of world-class standing. When the members of the Ontario women's four by 200 freestyle relay swim team won the gold medal, they set not only a Canada Games record but also a new Canadian senior women's record, and they set what was then the second fastest time in the world for that event.

Adding to this single outstanding achievement, these four young ladies in the gallery stacked up an amazing number of gold medals -- a total of 22 -- for swimming events during the games.

Jennifer Campbell set a record for the number of medals won at a Canada Games competition, with seven gold, one silver and one bronze.

Michelle McPherson won one of her gold medals with a performance that turned out to be the fourth fastest time in the world for the 400 individual medley.

In personal achievements, Cheryl McArton and Kathy Bald were not far behind. Kathy took five gold medals and Cheryl took four.

These young women represent all that is outstanding in competitive athletics in our province and in our country; so it is with great pleasure that I now introduce to this House the members of Ontario's world-class women's four by 200 freestyle relay swim team: Kathy Bald of Ottawa, Jennifer Campbell of Copper Cliff, Cheryl McArton of Toronto and Michelle McPherson of Toronto.

Applause.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the whole House extends congratulations to these young people.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time in the proceedings later this afternoon, I will be introducing bills amending three of the acts under the administration of my ministry.

The first will be the Environmental Protection Act, and these amendments will greatly enhance the effectiveness of this particular piece of legislation.

The honourable members have been provided with extensive briefing documents, both on Tuesday and agaifl today, just to make sure that if they happened to have left their copies in their offices they would not be upset this afternoon. I would like to mention a few of the amendments and the logic behind them.

First, we have moved to clear up legal uncertainty regarding the ownership of waste delivered to and accepted by the operator of a waste disposal site. The amendment makes it clear that waste becomes the responsibility of the owner.

What about waste deposited without authority on a site? The proposed amendments transfer ownership of such waste to the site operator without extinguishing the legal liability of the previous owner; in other words, there is shared responsibility under those circumstances.

The incentive is increased here to prevent indiscriminate dumping. It is clearly in the best interest of all parties to maintain such a level of security in the disposal operation as to prevent unauthorized deposits.

We are taking further steps against the fly-by-night operator who gets in the waste disposal business simply by obtaining a vehicle and dumping waste in a remote area without incurring the cost of treatment and of disposal at an approved site.

Under the amendments, designated officers will be empowered to seize immediately the permit and number plates of such a vehicle and, at the time of prosecution, to apply for a court order suspending the permit and plates for a period of up to five years. That will certainly make an operator think twice about engaging in that type of activity for easy profits.

Where a vehicle was registered outside Ontario, the court is empowered to order the return of permit and plates to the authority that issued them.

We have clarified and reinforced the powers of the Environmental Appeal Board. It is now abundantly clear that the board has the authority to go beyond a decision of the director and to substitute its own decisions for that of the director or to require him to reconsider a decision in accordance with the board's decision. If there is any doubt, this amendment now clarifies the power of the board.

The present wording provides for an appeal on a question of law from a decision of the board to a local county court. The proposed amendment provides that an appeal should be made to the divisional court of the Supreme Court of Ontario. We feel that this will reflect properly the importance of the issues and the fact that questions of law raised in appeal are often of general importance in the administration of the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Finally, the act as now constituted does not prescribe a limitation period for prosecutions. As a consequence of that, the general limitation period of six months, as set out in the Provincial Offences Act, applies.

2:30 p.m.

My ministry has been experiencing difficulty in bringing prosecutions to court within the prescribed limit. Pollution offences are often very difficult to detect and often take place in remote areas. A contaminant may mix with or disappear into the ground, the air or the water, and adverse effects may only arise after considerable time has passed. Laboratory verification of contaminants in a manner suitable for use in court is often complex and time-consuming.

A two-year limitation period would greatly increase the ministry's capability for prosecutions, particularly for those involving hauled industrial waste and hazardous waste. Therefore, we are providing for such an extention of the limitation period.

In addition to that bill, I will also be introducing --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask all the honourable members to please refrain from private conversations while the ministerial statements are being made.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was appreciating the high level of interest across the House in these important amendments.

In the proposed amendments to the Ontario Water Resources Act, we will be dealing with the matter of water wells. This will represent the first complete revision of these provisions since they were enacted in 1957.

Once again, the members have been provided with the background information. What we will be proposing will ensure the adequate installation, maintenance and closure of water wells for the protection of well water supplies and ground water and for public health and safety.

Under the terms of the third bill, there will be a relatively minor amendment to the Pesticides Act providing for the introduction of a two-year period during which prosecutions may be brought for similar reasons as I outlined in my first statement respecting the Environmental Protection Act.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling two documents dealing with the management of our forest resources.

The first document, Forest Research 80, is a report on the accomplishments of the Ontario Forest Research Centre at Maple and of the four field stations engaged in various aspects of research work.

This report describes the research done on a wide range of topics in forest biology, all of which is aimed at improving forest production, be it for fibre, poles, logs or biomass.

An important task of any research organization is, of course, to make its findings known to those who could or should use them, what is often referred to as technology transfer. I am confident this report accomplishes that task as efficiently and concisely as possible.

The second document I am tabling, Aerial Spraying for Forest Management -- an Operational Manual, is a detailed how-to set of instructions for a highly complex operation.

Aerial spraying, as I am sure the honourable members are aware, is an essential technique for the control of insects and unwanted vegetation in Ontario's forests. Indeed, in most cases, it is the only practical method of applying pesticides.

This manual offers complete directions to field staff and deals with every aspect of spraying, from the initial public information exercises to the actual handling of spray material and the selection of aircraft and pilots.

The forestry experts in my ministry are well aware of the concerns often expressed about aerial spraying, and this manual is in response to our insistence that all such projects be conducted with a high degree of operational control and maximum regard for the safety of all those involved.

I believe these two publications will offer the honourable members a good overview of our recent efforts in forest management.

WEST PATRICIA LAND-USE PLAN

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a document dealing with the use of land in the West Patricia area of our province. This deals with a planning area covering 223,500 square kilometres in the northwestern Ontario administrative districts of Red Lake, Sioux Lookout and Geraldton north of the Albany River.

The growing population and improved standard of living in Ontario are placing more and more demands on our land and water resources. In order to meet those demands it is essential that the uses of the land and water resources are co-ordinated. That is why we need land-use plans.

Our comprehensive land-use planning program is our response to the challenges these increasing demands have thrust upon my ministry.

Land-use planning deals with the identification and allocation of land to realize specific benefits from the basic resources of land and water. These benefits could be well-known products of the natural environment such as timber or minerals, or they could be derived from the use of the natural environment for leisure-time activities such as camping, sport fishing or snowmobiling.

Of course, planning also deals with the social, economic and environmental costs of achieving these benefits. Since my ministry's land-use planning program is designed to serve, first, the residents of the planning area and, second, the people of Ontario as a whole, public participation is an extremely important step in the planning process.

To this end we have conducted a number of open-house sessions with the public regarding the West Patricia plan. These were held at Red Lake on July 28 last, at Sioux Lookout on August 5 and at Ear Falls on August 6. Our aim was to involve concerned citizens with every step of the planning process. Publications outlining the West Patricia land-use planning process included an introduction booklet, various papers dealing with the public participation program and a series of approximately 30 background information papers. These publications were made available to the public as they were completed.

My stand on public participation is well known, I am sure. I feel very strongly about the need to keep the taxpayers fully informed of the actions of my ministry and of the effects such actions may have on all sectors of our society. This West Patricia land-use plan publication is but another way to achieve this aim.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: If you would send someone up, you would find out about it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, does this mean that Timmins will not get a food terminal?

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I would like to quote from his statement to this House one year ago, which can be found in Hansard beginning on page 3863. He says:

"I believe strongly that more of the nation's petroleum industry should be Canadianized, but I make a very clear distinction between Canadianization and nationalization. Nationalization along the lines the budget has proposed will simply export Canadian dollars without adding one barrel of oil to our supplies. Taxing the Canadian people" -- and this is the key sentence -- "to buy the existing industry is really a misallocation of resources and a waste of time."

In view of the fact that the Treasurer is a man of honour and integrity, who obviously holds very deeply views fundamentally opposed to the purchase of Suncor, will the Treasurer explain to this House how he can continue to pretend to be the man in charge of economic policy in Ontario when such a major decision as the purchase of Suncor has been made clearly against his wishes? Will he have the honour, the integrity and the self-respect either to resign his position or to ask to be transferred to a different portfolio?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I recall making that statement a year ago, Mr. Speaker. I believe it was in response to the federal government's national energy program, and it was the feeling of this government, not just myself, at that time.

I believe the ability to control the economy of this province still rests in the Treasury. I would point out that whenever a decision is taken in the cabinet of this government, it is endorsed by all members of the cabinet. That has been one of the main reasons we have stayed in power on this side of the House and the opposition has been divided on that side of the House.

At the same time I, like all my colleagues in the cabinet, took a pledge when I was sworn in as a minister and member of the executive council to express freely and in the confidence of cabinet my opinions on any matters. I have that opportunity and I would suspect if I had to resign each time I disagreed with the consensus opinion of cabinet, I or any other minister would be faced with resignation at least once a week.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, given that we are not speaking of just the average minister disagreeing with the average cabinet decision, but we are speaking of the Treasurer of Ontario being fundamentally, philosophically, deeply at odds with the most major economic undertaking announced in the past several years by the government of Ontario, does the Treasurer not recognize that for his own self respect, given the depth of his feeling on this matter, he owes it to himself and to the concept of honour in politics to at least ask to be in a different portfolio, if not to resign outright?

While he speaks of this as a decision and opinion he held some time ago, he must surely recall his interview in Le Devoir only seven weeks ago, while the very negotiations were going on with Suncor presumably -- I remind him the Premier said it was the support of the Canadianization program that led him to purchase Suncor -- in which the Treasurer said the national energy program of the federal government was among the principal causes of the economic difficulties of the country and he claimed the reason high interest rates were necessary in this country was because of a lack of confidence in the dollar which the national energy program had engendered.

Under these circumstances, once again I call on the minister, as a person for whom I have personal respect, to have the honour in politics to resign his post on this occasion.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I really have no further answer.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Treasurer tell the House what precise documentation was provided to the cabinet and to him, along this passage through the Red Sea, to persuade him that it was in the government's interest to reverse his policy and obtain 25 per cent of Suncor, and why the government and cabinet were persuaded not to go to the 51 per cent to provide full Canadianization of the company?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think other ministers might answer that better than I. The member may wish to address it to another minister later on. I can assure him that at the time the negotiations began, that was the amount available. The Premier commented the other day that there were certain option periods or points during which the province had an option or the right to buy certain percentages up to 51 per cent.

Mr. Foulds: I would redirect it to the Minister of Energy for an answer.

Mr. Speaker: He said you may ask another question at a later time.

Mr. Foulds: He said redirect.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure he said you may ask another question at another time.

Mr. Smith: Given that it must surely be the Treasurer's first priority to improve the economic climate of this province and this country, and given that there can be nothing more fundamental than the statement he made -- which says that our economic difficulties, our high interest rates and the lack of confidence that is seen in the Canadian dollar are due to this nationalization or Canadianization program -- given that those are his fundamental beliefs, can the Treasurer think of anything more basic upon which a difference of principle with the government might involve his resigning from the Treasurer's post?

Given that his own words have said this is a misallocation of resources, a waste of time and it is undermining confidence in the dollar and is responsible for high interest rates, what worse has to be done before the Treasurer would feel he should give up his post?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Smith: I have a second question, Mr. Speaker. Excuse me. I was quite dumfounded by the fact that the Treasurer did not rise. I am disappointed as well.

I have a second question for the Treasurer. Is the reason for his unhappiness about the Suncor purchase that he believes Ontario should be using what scarce financial resources it has for other purposes and should not be increasing the cash requirements or deficit by over $300 million for a deal which will not create a single job in Ontario, which will do nothing to help the businesses in Ontario or our manufacturing sector, which will do nothing to help those hit by inflation or by high interest rates, which will do nothing to ensure the quality of health, education and social services and will do nothing to reduce our dependence on oil?

Is it because all those priorities are held higher by the Treasurer that he is reluctant to give $300 million of additional debt over to this Suncor purchase? Is that the reason he is against the purchase?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has woven into his question a number of assumptions. The first was that I had stated somewhere that I disagreed with this decision. I did not. The comment of a year ago that he read is not related to this specific deal.

I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition in the beginning, when I began this, that regardless of a private position in cabinet a minister of the crown supports the decisions of the cabinet. Second, he has made the assumption that it may not be a wise investment or that it has no productive or direct benefits to the province. He said there would not be a single job brought to the province in his question on that particular deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That was last year's statement on another subject altogether. I am simply pointing out that at this point I cannot predict what direct employment results, if any, will occur in Ontario on the basis of the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor. I suspect the member jumped to that conclusion in his question. I am simply saying that is --

Mr. Peterson: On what basis?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the basis of whether the deal was a good purchase. The answer is unquestionably yes. The price paid by the province, the viability of the company -- all those things stood rigorous and rigid examination by many people in the course of many months of tough negotiation, which was mainly concerned with the price and the value of the assets. That

part clearly stands on its own merits.

Mr. Smith: The Treasurer is too intelligent a person to truly believe that what he is saying constitutes an answer to the question he was asked. I therefore ask him again: Does he not recognize that the Premier has said this will not create jobs in Ontario?

Would the Treasurer please explain to us how, aside from the fact that this might turn out in the long run to be a good investment --

An hon. member: It will.

Mr. Smith: It might. Buying stocks on the stock market might turn out to be good. Buying land assemblies could have turned out to be good. It turned out to be bad, but it could turn out to be good.

Given the fact it is not the primary job of the government of Ontario to go around seeking interesting business deals around the country but rather to tax the people of Ontario to provide better services for the people of Ontario, and to do only those things that the private sector is unable or unwilling to do, would the Treasurer admit that he is reluctant to suffer an increase in his cash requirements of over $300 million for something that does not help depressed Ontario industries, does not provide employment for our people, does not ensure the strength of our services and does not reverse the economic decline in our manufacturing sector?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish I had the time to go back and get a copy of a speech the member gave in Kingston. It does not seem to me that the things he is now enunciating as if they were right-wing Liberal policy were the things he stated as his objectives for a government.

I find it difficult to believe that a person who would try to direct his party to the left as he did in Kingston would be suggesting that this kind of involvement in determining the security of the oil supply of the citizens of Ontario is wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I do not think I have seen a minister as uncomfortable in defending a government policy since Bert Lawrence was defending his trip to Cuba seven or eight years ago in this Legislature.

Since the reason we do not get jobs in Ontario from the deal, the reason we get only technical Canadianization, the reason Sun Oil in the United States will continue to control the company, is that Ontario is only taking 25 per cent and leaving control in the American company's hands, could the minister explain why Ontario shied away from taking 51 per cent so we could run that company for the interest of Canadians and Ontarians?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is in the interests of those of us who live in Ontario, including the honourable member -- and I believe he has roundly supported this purchase, unless I am wrong -- to see that 51 per cent of the company is held by Canadians. Through that will flow a number of benefits, as I understand it, to the company and, therefore, to the shareholders including ourselves and, perhaps more important, to those of us who depend upon new sources of oil from within Canada.

There is a period of time during which, it is my understanding, the owners of Sun Oil Incorporated in the United States will actively be looking for other purchasers for the balance of the shares to Canadianize that company. It is also my understanding that the arrangements concluded permit this province at certain stated points to purchase more shares.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part supplementary question. First, I want to ask the Treasurer how he intends to finance this purchase, particularly given the fact he has tabled supplementaries for an additional quarter of a billion dollars and now, on top of that, there is another $325 million out of this year's budget?

Second, does this purchase, which obviously was under negotiation for some period of time, account for the fact the Treasurer and the Premier were mum on energy prices after the conclusion of the federal-Alberta agreement on energy prices, particularly since they paraded as the champions of low energy prices before the election; and does this recent acquisition not put them into an intolerable position of conflict of interest on the energy pricing question in this country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, the financing is reasonably straightforward: $325 million will be paid by Ontario to, I believe, Ontario Energy Corporation, which in turn --

Mr. Peterson: Where are you going to borrow it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That would be borrowed from the normal pension funds of this year. That will increase my cash requirements by $325 million. The second $325 million will be borrowed through devices as yet to be finalized. When those are finalized, I believe the member will find the moneys required to handle that $325 million may well be generated, hopefully, by dividends or cash flows during the 10-year period. That will be finalized before the closing date on the deal.

The second part of the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was asked of the Treasurer; let the Treasurer reply.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a bit difficult, Mr. Speaker. The second part of the question was, "Does this suddenly take us to world prices?" The answer is, of course not. Listen, I do not know what share of the Canadian markets Suncor has, but if it is thought that for the relatively small total refund Ontario will get through the dividend process, we suddenly want to see the price skyrocket, I think that is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we used to be accused of being wild-eyed Socialists, but now we have wild-eyed Tories and just wild Liberals in this House.

I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The estimates by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that were disclosed in Ottawa yesterday stated that 85,000 Canadians will lose their homes by the end of this year because of the high interest rates and having to renew their mortgages. Since 40 per cent of the home owners in the country are in Ontario, that means some 35,000 Ontarians will lose their homes by the end of this year because of the high interest rates on mortgages when they come to renew.

Has the ministry investigated just what the situation is and would the minister give us his estimate of how many people in this province will lose their homes because of the increase in mortgage rates?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not sure the statement that CMHC released the report in Ottawa is correct. It is my understanding it was the leader of the NDP in Ottawa who released that particular remark. I do not recall having heard the minister reporting for CMHC in Ottawa concurring with it, but the figure of 85,000 has been used.

Let me very carefully indicate what we see in Ontario in relationship to those who will use 30 per cent or more of their gross disposable income in relationship to housing. In doing an assessment in this province our indications are that if a 22 per cent rate on mortgages prevails, some 35,000 home owners will be spending more than 30 per cent of their disposable income on housing; at 20 per cent there would be 30,500 and at 18 per cent there would be 27,500. But, very clearly, we are not saying, nor is the federal government, that all those people we happen to be referring to are in jeopardy of losing their homes.

Let me add one other remark. In the discussions we have had with both Mr. Cosgrove, through CMHC, and Mr. MacEachen we have suggested to the federal government that if some assistance is to be afforded to give relief in relationship to mortgage rates, it would be given to those who use more than 30 per cent of their disposable income for housing.

Mr.

Cassidy: Since the minister says, and I am sure it is a rock-bottom estimate, that 35,000 people will find themselves paying more than 30 per cent of their gross income -- and a lot more of their net income -- when they come to renew their mortgages at today's interest rates, will the minister say why Ontario is not prepared to recommend to the federal government, or to take action itself, to impose a moratorium and ensure that mortgage renewals are made at the existing rate for the next six or 12 months, in order to ensure there is pressure on the federal government to bring the interest rates down and to spare people from having to get into that kind of ruinous situation with their mortgage renewals?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I do not accept it is a rock-bottom figure. In the calculations of my ministry, through substantiation of figures from both Statistics Canada and CHMC, the 35,000 was at 22 per cent; the interest rate in some cases is lower than that in the market rate today. I have no idea what happened to the bank issue this afternoon. If there has been a further reduction of half a per cent or better we could see mortgage rates drop even a point or so at this time. I am not predicting that; I am only saying if there is an adjustment I think mortgage rates will adjust accordingly.

Regarding the second part of the question, I believe that is more in the Treasurer's field than mine.

3 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the minister accept a subsidy from the province so that he can own a second home in one of the most chic neighbourhoods in all of Toronto and at the same time not be willing to lift a finger to help the average working man stay in his home? How can the minister responsible for housing in Ontario feel morally correct in a position such as that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is one very simple answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I believe the Board of Internal Economy dealt with a policy for the members of this House, not specific to the housing minister. To advise the member --

Mr. Breithaupt: No, no.

Mr. Nixon: You have a responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said a policy position. I trust the former leader of that party will go back and see what they do in various other jurisdictions in Canada. But let me just indicate --

Mr. Nixon: Our responsibility is right here and we are worried about you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is fine. The member should continue to worry about it right here. That is exactly what I do as well -- worry about responsibilities in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the question does not really relate to my ministry but the question has been placed to me. First of all, since 1977 I have not drawn any living allowance, as most of the members from outside the jurisdiction have. Second, at this point the government has never paid me a cent towards the private residence I have. So I do not consider my position in life is being subsidized any more than some of the members from the opposition who think they are lily-white. They have also drawn their position.

Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know what the minister means when he says some of the other members here are not lily-white because they have drawn a living allowance. He has to withdraw that. He is the only one who wants a house and wants an allowance for it. Nobody else does.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Nixon: He cannot say that about the members --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I will take a look at Hansard and see what the minister did say.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of a study done for the Honourable Paul Cosgrove which indicates that rents in modern buildings in this country will virtually double in the next 18 months under the present system? As the minister responsible for rent-geared-to-income housing in this province, what is he going to do to pick up the slack for those people who cannot afford to pay rent in the private market?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the question.

Mr. Philip: I would be glad to repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister like me to repeat the question?

Mr. Speaker: Please.

Mr. Philip: I am asking him if he is aware of a study that was done for the Honourable Paul Cosgrove that indicates an average renter in a modern building will see the amount he pays each month virtually double in the next 18 months. As the minister responsible for rent-geared-to-income housing, to house those people who cannot afford to make it in the private market, what is he going to do to pick up the slack of those people who can no longer afford to rent in the private market?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the first part of the question about the report, because I think we have shared most of those that have been done for the Honourable Mr. Cosgrove. In both his ministry and mine we share studies both in the fields of ownership and in rental accommodation. We are aware there are going to be some rental increases -- there is no doubt about that. I think we all recognize that mortgage money is at a very high rate, as is the price of fuel and energy and other costs of operation.

In all the studies and reports we have done within the ministry I am not aware we are going to see a doubling of rents in the 18-month period for a big portion of the market. That is not what all the reports to my ministry indicate, and indeed the ministry work from inside.

As for the last part of the question, we continue, as the member knows, to encourage municipalities, private organizations and co-ops to continue to build structures, rental structures or otherwise, with a percentage being made available for rent geared to income. Indeed, under the Ontario rental construction loan program, there was a percentage of those units that will be made available to the various housing authorities in which the units are located for use under the rental subsidy program.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: We just want a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Epp: We only had one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is right.

USER FEES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain why he has been sending up trial balloons about the government imposing user fees on people in Ontario? And will he assure the House that universal medicare in this province will not be undermined by imposing user fees either when people go to see the doctor or when they go to hospital?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any threat to universal medicare at this point. I would have to say --

Mr. Breithaupt: When will there be?

Mr. Foulds: At what point?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have told the federal minister and the federal government repeatedly that if they are going to tinker substantially with the transfers to the provinces, they are going to put all the provincial governments in a very difficult position in choosing their means of living with those changes. That could substantially affect the shape of medicare.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Justice Hall said that was wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is no threat to medicare. There is not now and there has not been. My colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), reminds me of Mr. Justice Hall's report. Mr. Justice Hall found that medicare was in good health, if you will -- that the inequities, the shortages and the impediments to service he had found in the early 1960s when he did his first review of health service in the country had been overcome. So there is no threat to medicare.

How are we to believe this minister when he says, "It is something we might do at some time because of federal action," when Ontario has not been keeping up its share of medicare costs but has been leaving that to the federal government, and when Ontario has already imposed user fees with respect to both chronic care and ambulance fees? When he has imposed user fees in those areas, how can we trust him when he says it is not going to come at this time? Will he guarantee we will not have user fees with respect to physician charges and hospital beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First, Mr. Speaker, it is blatantly untrue to say that Ontario has not been keeping up its end of the cost of medicare. In fact, Mr. Justice Hall found just the contrary, and the federal minister who had been mouthing certain things in certain federal election campaigns had to eat her words. Further, the parliamentary task force report which was tabled in September, known as the Breau report, confirmed the conclusion that the provinces have not been diverting funds from medicare to other purposes -- that we have indeed held up our end of the deal.

Second, it is true that we have had in Ontario for a number of years, in certain areas, certain user fees. The honourable member refers to user fees for chronic care, which his party supported in a famous report --

Mr. Foulds: That is blatantly untrue.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is basically blatantly true, my friend. The member had better read the report his members signed.

Mr. Foulds: The minister had better read the report. He had better also read the Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is true we have had certain user fees such as that. I would remind the member, in case he is not already aware of it, that Saskatchewan, the great Valhalla of his party, just introduced identical user fees for nursing homes and chronic care on July 1.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Minister of Health intends to move ahead with this user fee idea, either using the so-called possible federal cutback as the reason or some other reason. The minister said his real belief was that a user fee was necessary -- if I remember his words correctly -- because there had been an increase in the number of services being provided by physicians and this was a way of keeping the lid on that.

Given that, would the minister admit that the idea of user fees is not to raise revenue, but is basically put forward by people in his ministry with the notion that people will not accept their physician's request that they come back for repeated services if they have to pay, and physicians will otherwise continue to reuse services and create more utilization? Otherwise, can he tell us what the possible rationale is for user fees and why he raised the issue in Ottawa at all?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all the honourable member has not even quoted me. What he alleges to be my remarks are words that I have never used. I have never tied the concept of user fees, as it exists today in this province and in most of the 10 provinces and the territories, to utilization. I do not believe in deterrent fees. I do not believe that deterrent fee systems work.

The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has pointed out that we do have user fees and have had for many years: in nursing homes for almost a decade, in ambulance systems for more than a decade and in chronic care for almost three years. And in none of those areas of the system has the existence of reasonably-tailored user fees impeded the growth in utilization. Indeed, you can point to the growth in the numbers --

Mr. Cassidy: It makes one law for the rich and one for the poor: one medicare for the rich and one for the poor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Pardon me. I have the floor, if I may finish.

Indeed, if the member looks at the growth in the use of the ambulance system, which has grown by about 25 per cent in the last five years as compared with a five or six per cent growth in population, he will see there have been no deterrents there due to user fees.

If the member looks at the growth in the numbers of nursing home beds in nursing homes and homes for the aged and the growth in the numbers of chronic-care beds, where user fees do apply, he will see they have not deterred utilization.

I would be remiss, though, if I did not say this: When this question arose it was a very minor component of an alarm I was trying to sound to the Ontario people about the fact that the federal government is contemplating some very large reductions in their transfer payments to the provinces. The federal Minister of Health and Welfare says, "Don't worry. I have been able to convince the federal cabinet not to cut into the health care field." I say it is all well and good there will not be any direct cuts.

But if large amounts are cut from any of the transfers to the provinces, the ministries of health of the 10 provinces and the two territories -- which on average spend about 30 per cent of their respective budgets -- cannot help but cope in some way with those reductions the federal government may be imposing on us.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If, as the minister says, user fees are a small component in the realm of future contemplation, can he explain to us why it is the strategic research branch of his ministry, directed by Mr. LeBlanc, has already hired contract consultants on a confidential basis to analyse contingency plans that have been developed for the imposition of user fees? Specifically can he tell us why plans have been developed to introduce the carrot of increased funding for health service organizations in exchange for the club of hospital user charges? If the minister is simply contemplating user charges why is it that he already has so much interesting work in progress?

Hon Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the connection to HSOs is, because there is no connection. But certainly in preparing for the federal budget, which we are told will come down before the end of October, in order to serve the people of Ontario properly we must be in a position to analyse and be ready to speak to the various policy options open to us if indeed the reductions of federal transfers are of the magnitude referred to repeatedly by the Minister of Finance of Canada and by the Prime Minister. First and foremost --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First and foremost our aim must be to maintain the quality --

Mr. Smith: You are using the sick and the poor as hostages.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: Now we understand why the member is leaving.

If the honourable member would just once step aside from his usual sarcasm and cynicism and look at what has been done in this province in the last 10 to 15 years for the poor and the aged he will find there is not a jurisdiction on this continent that has done as much for those people as Ontario has, let alone more.

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE WATER QUALITY

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I wonder if he is as concerned as we are about the recent findings of organic halogens in the private wells in Stouffville. Those tests were done by an independent US laboratory which had previously conducted tests at the Love Canal.

In June, if the minister recalls, he stated there had been very comprehensive testing of the water supply in that area. However we have noticed the sampling came from the north, south and east of the landfill site

whereas he himself admitted, on June 4, that the aquifer moved in a westerly direction from the landfill site. The results yesterday came from wells to the west of the site, the area his people failed to test.

I wonder if the minister is doing his job, when he can see the results of not doing his job in Niagara. Why did his people not take tests in the area where the known aquifer was moving?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member realizes that tests have been taken in all directions from that site.

Mr. Kerrio: Now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Now. That is absolutely correct, I mean not what the member is saying but what I am saying.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister was right the first time.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course, one is always concerned when one hears this kind of information being talked about. We try to check it out as promptly as possible, but if some of the individuals involved were as candid with us as we are with them I would not feel so much as if I was playing a game of hide-and-seek.

The first information I received about these tests was by way of a telephone call from a newspaper reporter; up until this morning, in spite of the efforts of my staff, that was still the only source of information we had. The individuals who had the testing done had not told us, nor could the newspaper reporter because apparently they did not divulge that information to him or her. We were not given the information as to where the tests were done. It was not available to us. We were not told which wells and in which directions they had done the testing; how the samples were taken; whether they were done carefully so as not to contaminate samples and that type of information.

My staff may have succeeded in getting that information since I have been in the House this afternoon. But it is very difficult for me to stand in the Legislature, knowing the very real responsibility I bear for dealing with these kinds of things, and respond on the basis of information that has not even been shared with me or my staff up to this point.

According to the information we received via the person from the news media, apparently in one well near the site -- I do not know which direction it was in -- they allegedly found 50.2 parts per billion of an organic halogen. We do not know what type of organic halogen it was. We do not know what techniques were used in doing the tests. What is also very significant is that we do not know whether any of the water that was tested had been chlorinated. I'm told that all chlorinated water has organic halogens ranging from 10 to 100 parts per billion. They might be testing perfectly good chlorinated water and getting these results.

In another well -- again I do not know the location although I understand it is in the west -- they report 30.4 parts per billion of an organic halogen. Once again I do not know the type. I do not know how the testing was done, but I think it is also important to realize we are talking about 50 and 30 roughly, if this information is correct.

I would remind the member that the federally-established guidelines for trihalomethanes in drinking water is 350 parts per billion. Depending upon what this is, it could be well below the drinking water standard guideline for Canada, so I really do not know what it is I am dealing with.

3:20 p.m.

I hope by tomorrow I will have received some information from these individuals and will know where the testing was done so we have some understanding of the reliability of the laboratory. That could be significant. It makes a big difference whether it is tested in somebody's basement laboratory. The results of the 2,000 tests I have shared with this House and with the public in this province were done in what is probably the most sophisticated laboratory by some of the most competent and well-trained individuals anywhere in North America. I do not know what I am responding to in this instance.

Mr. Kerrio: Let us get back to the basic question. What is very important is that we do proper monitoring. My question is, are we doing proper monitoring and did the ministry test those areas, particularly where the known aquifers are moving? It is a question I raised with the minister before. Is it not time we tested all the dangerous sites so we know whether there is movement of dangerous toxics before they reach our water supply? In this instance I wonder if the minister would reply as to whether he would have his people go out and test the westerly side where the aquifers are moving to be absolutely certain there is no movement in that direction?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the member testing has been done in that direction. If, on the basis of this information, there is any indication there ought to be heightened activity, I would not hesitate for one moment to ensure that is done. By the way, as an additional precaution, we have already recently increased the frequency of the testing to once every two weeks from the previous level of once a month.

What I cannot tell the member is whether in our testing we have also tested the wells from which these samples were allegedly taken. No one has seen fit to share with us the information as to the location of the wells we are talking about. I hope by the end of this day someone will.

Mr. Charlton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The minister constantly refers to whether or not the levels of substances that have and are being found are dangerous according to national and/or provincial standards. Could he please tell us what that has to do with it? What relevance does that have to the concerns being raised by the people in Stouffville?

The question is not whether anything being found is now at a dangerous level. The question, as the member for Niagara Falls has put it, is whether anything is at present moving out of that dump site. That is the question the minister should be looking to answer -- not continually throwing up this smoke screen that the levels may be safe.

We had reports earlier this year from his own ministry of lindane in one well which later disappeared, so they wrote it off. All those things should be followed up by the ministry in terms of determining what is moving out of that dump site. That is what the minister has to determine. When is the minister going to start dealing with that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the honourable member thinks we have been doing. It is just nonsense that a person who allegedly is a responsible citizen of this province, representing a constituency, could act so irresponsibly as to suggest that is not precisely what we have been doing.

If he is honest with himself and the others in this House, he knows very well there has probably been more intensive testing done of well water, ground water and of that site than in any other area in the history of this province. It is continuing to be done.

He should also know that as a result of some recent drilling that did locate the PCBs, which for some time were believed to have been deposited there more than 10 years ago, a company under our supervision is now engaged in intensive further testing of the site to determine whether there is any mobility.

Mr. Charlton: Why did it take 10 years with all this intensive testing? Why did it take 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, listen you twerp, calm down. Surely the one qualifying factor for standing for election in this Legislature is that you ought to have already grown up.

Mr. Stokes: Will you add that on to your list, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, there is a twerp over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Martel: What kind of crap is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Laughren: Why don't you make him withdraw that remark?

Mr. Cassidy: Is it parliamentary?

Mr. Laughren: He can't really say those kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member did not raise it.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, for God's sake.

Mr. Nixon: Twerp is okay.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. I will take a look at the record and see what Hansard has said and I will get back. In the meantime, the member for Oakwood has the floor.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Grande: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I wonder if she could please be so kind as to tell me whether this document I have in my hand, the statement by the Honourable Bette Stephenson, MD, Minister of Education, Minister of Colleges and Universities, introducing the final estimates for the year 1981-82, is the document she will be reading at her estimates beginning Monday of this coming week?

Hon. Miss. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it was the document prepared for estimates which were to begin on Tuesday afternoon of this week. As a result of the efforts of the two opposition parties they did not begin. I think there may be further developments within the ministry before estimates do begin next week, so therefore I cannot promise that document is precisely what I will be reading as an introduction to estimates.

Mr. Grande: Would I then be correct in looking forward to the statement in this report which says, "The government is going to continue on its restraint program for the coming fiscal year." If that is going to remain in her statement, does it not mean that she has rejected the recommendation of the report of the committee on the future role of universities, and in essence that she is saying to the universities, "Close down."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The logic of the honourable member totally escapes me at the present time, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand how he could possibly come to that conclusion from that one simple statement. I believe it is an understood policy of this government that we try to live within our revenue limits as best we can and I believe that policy will continue.

Mr. Wrye: Since the minister has suggested that between now and next Monday when she may be giving us her opening statement she may be making some changes in that opening statement, perhaps one of those changes may be -- and I would like to ask if the rumours making the rounds of the universities are true, especially the universities I have been touring -- that tuition fees for Ontario's 12,500 visa students are going to be dramatically increased -- specifically doubled to approximately $4,000?

Is the minister now prepared to confirm in the House that the government's first response to the Fisher report which chronicles the persistent underfunding of the post-secondary system of this government will in fact be a money-grab from visa students amounting to some $25 million?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the question was. The honourable member was obviously making a statement. I think there was a question at the end about whether I was prepared to say something at this point about a subject which he sees as something which is imminent. At the moment it is not imminent.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Minister of Colleges and Universities uses logic when she does speak because obviously she does not understand the logic I am using. We come from two different points of view, obviously.

3:30 p.m.

But is the minister not aware that the committee on the future of universities has stated in its report that unless the increases to the university at least match inflation plus $25 million for facilities and labs that need to be redone, the alternative will be that universities will close down? And if they continue their government restraint program the level at which the universities will be funded will be less than a 12 or 13 per cent increase -- hence the closure of the universities. Does the minister not agree that is logical?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No it is not, Mr. Speaker.

MEASLES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Data released by the Canadian Paediatric Society in September this year indicated that the incidence of measles in Canada was 10 times greater than in the US and that 61 per cent, or 8,253, of the total of over 13,000 Canadian cases were in Ontario. Could the minister tell us what he is planning to do about this shocking state of affairs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, from my involvement with the subject I recall that the incidence of measles is a cyclical problem. Now, depending on one's point of view, we are at the high point or the low point of a cycle.

This fall we introduced, for new school entrants, what we think is a significant improvement to our immunization program. Measles vaccine is provided free of charge through the ministry to family physicians or to the health units. Under this new program, which began this fall with the new registrants in our school system, the parents are asked to provide us -- when I say "us" I mean the health unit officials working through the schools -- with the immunization histories of their children. Obviously, if there is no history at all then there is work to be done.

That is then drawn to the attention of the parents, and they are usually given the choice of either improving the immunization status through the health unit clinics in the school system or directing themselves to their family physicians.

In this way, we believe, we will be able to improve significantly the immune status of Ontario, which in the main -- I think the member was quoting Canadian statistics -- he will find is much higher than in most other Canadian provinces.

That program was introduced just this year. But in addition we are looking specifically at the measles question to see whether we need to go further -- with respect to that and perhaps one or two other communicable diseases -- beyond the voluntary stage.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Approximately one per cent of all children getting measles require hospitalization and one in every thousand children contacting measles is left with encephalitis, which can kill or permanently injure a child and leave him or her mentally retarded. One child out of every 10,000 contracting measles dies. In view of these statistics will the minister follow the example of the United States, which has implemented a mandatory immunization program and which has a relative incidence of about 10 per cent of what we have here in Ontario?

In other words, voluntary immunization seems not to be working; mandatory immunization is what we need. Aside from the American experience, medical specialists here in Ontario, such as Dr. Gold at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, who is a disease specialist, say that we should have this in place now. What is the minister going to do? Is he going to wait for a real disaster to take place? When is he going to act on it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first, it is not compulsory, to the best of my knowledge, in all of the United States. It is a state matter, and it varies from state to state.

Second, the member is comparing the lowest of American figures -- I think in the same report -- to some of the highest Canadian figures, not Ontario. Ontario, relative to most jurisdictions in North America, has a very good immune status in its population -- not just with respect to measles but also with respect to mumps, diphtheria, polio and so forth.

In certain parts of the province where the rate of immunization is up in the 90 to 95 per cent range, there are areas where even a compulsory program probably would not improve the immunity status an awful lot. We believe one of the reasons for this has been a lack of consistency in the approach across the province. That is why we introduced this feature to the immunization program for new school entrants, and in that way to strive to raise the level of immunity.

In addition to that we have under review, in the ministry, specifically the question of measles, but there are others. It may well be that a compulsory program, even forgetting for the moment that individuals could have some problems with that, could have significant impact on measles as well as in the areas of fluoridation, polio and so forth.

In looking at measles, I am not going to forget that there is a broader policy question too. I hope the member will not forget either.

Mr. Van Horne: Given that I cannot have a final supplementary, I would raise a point of privilege with the minister. The figures are not my --

Mr. Speaker: You do not use one in place of the other.

Mr. Van Horne: While I am on my feet, I would like to point out to the minister that the figures I was quoting were not mine but were figures from the Canadian Paediatrics Society.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. How is the minister going to respond to the charges made by the Grand Council of Treaty 9, and others, that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment should be scrapped because it is a waste of money and is irrelevant? They charge that it has given false hopes and that, after four years of study, actually nothing has developed.

The only communication we have had from that body in the last two years is that they are waiting on this government to indicate what kind of policy they have for economic development in the north. In fact, it was their mandate to do just that for this government.

How will the minister respond to those charges that the commission is now irrelevant?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Positively. Would the honourable member like me to say enthusiastically? I, personally, have not been in receipt of those remarks, but I can assure the member that the operation of the royal commission is very much on my mind at the moment. As soon as I have had an opportunity to discuss it further with my colleagues, I will be prepared to respond further on that.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

Mr. J. A. Taylor from the select committee on pensions presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make, if I may.

As chairman of the select committee on pensions, I am pleased that the interim report tabled today represents a consensus of all committee members on those issues that can be addressed with a minimum of cost and effort by employers and employees.

This report represents an important first step towards pension reform that should be taken if we are to ensure a brighter financial future for those who retire. However, more complex issues must be examined by the committee, and will be in the new year.

3:40 p.m.

I know all the committee members are looking forward to the completion of their task in 1982. In the meantime, it is hoped that this interim report will assist the government in the preparation of a legislative pension reform package.

In accordance with standing order 30(c), I now move that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not disagree with anything the chairman has said but, as a member of the committee, I do feel obliged to bring to your attention the fact that the committee report was transmitted directly to the printers without the members of the committee having had an opportunity, not only to sign the report or to decline to sign it but also to read the final draft.

I simply raise this as a procedural point. I think it is important to the proper functioning of select and standing committees that, before reports are forwarded to the printer, let alone tabled in the House, all the members of the committee should have the opportunity to read the final draft.

I would say as well that my experience on select committees always has been that the members have the opportunity to affix their signatures to any report prior to its being sent to the printers and being tabled here in the Legislature.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to those comments, I appreciate very much the concern of the member for Bellwoods. As a matter of fact, he has made a great contribution to the work of the committee, and I was delighted to have him on the committee and to review the report with us. As he very well knows, we did review and read the draft report prior to printing.

I also inquired as to the necessity of each and every member signing it. I think that is the issue the member raises, and rightfully so. I raised the same issue myself, if I may say that, and the instruction I had from the Clerk's office was that the rule now is that the chairman of the committee signs the report and it is not necessary for each member to do so.

In accordance with that, I presume that the draft, as reviewed by the committee members, was forwarded to the printer for printing, and I am assured it manifests precisely the wording of each paragraph as settled on by each and every member of the committee.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: I find what my friend has said very interesting. I do not know where the Clerk got the idea that he could give that type of instruction. Surely that is up to the committee to decide.

On all the select committees I have been on, the practice has been that every member is given an opportunity to read the final draft and every member affixes his signature to that report. In the past, where a member of a committee has gone to cabinet, there has been a blank left.

I do not know why this has changed without the authorization of at least the committee or this Legislature. I resent it, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that you make sure it does not occur again.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much; and I want to thank the member for Bellwoods for raising the point.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if I may: First and foremost, I want to say, and I am sure all members will not disagree on this one point, the chairman has done an excellent job in the work of the committee up to this time, and I am sure he will continue to do so. He has given excellent leadership and direction to the committee.

However, I must regretfully support the concern that has been expressed here this afternoon, because it was my understanding that some opportunity would be provided to review the final draft of the report before it was tabled in the Legislature.

I think the members will concede that, while it would appear to convey a consensus of thinking of the committee members, there were several recommendations in that report that created quite a bit of controversy and debate during its preparation.

If we had had an opportunity to see those recommendations in the final form before being tabled, it might well be that there would not have been that consensus of thinking and there would have been dissenting points of view appended to that particular report. It is unfortunate that opportunity was not provided so that clearly it could have been a consensus of thinking. At this point in time that remains a clouded issue.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, as a member of that committee, I want to associate myself with the comments made by the member for Bellwoods and the subsequent comments by the two members. I felt that I would have an opportunity to see the final draft and to add my signature to the preliminary report. I did not have that opportunity.

I regret very much that this advice has been given to the chairman by the Clerk's office or by whoever it was from the Clerk's office. I believed there was a convention here that members should have the opportunity to sign a report of this nature; and if somebody takes it upon himself to change that, it should be either the committee or the House that makes those changes rather than an individual in the Clerk's office.

Mr. Martel: I just want to ask, Mr. Speaker, if he will refer this matter to the procedural affairs committee for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to thank all those members who --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Did you want to --

Mr. Stokes: I am not going to interrupt you, Mr. Speaker. You are on your feet.

Mr. Speaker: I just want to say thank you to the members who spoke and to the member for raising that point in the first place. It was news to me.

There seems to be some confusion as to why it happened. I would like to assure all the members that I will take immediate steps to ensure that it does not happen again, either through misinformation or confusion or whatever happened -- I do not know.

Certainly everybody on the committee should have an opportunity to read the report prior to its being tabled, in my view. I hope this report will not come forward for debate until such time as all members have had the opportunity to make themselves more familiar with it.

I will be glad to take your point under consideration. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion in my mind. With respect, may I point out in regard to the sequence of events that in my experience it has been the custom for members of a select committee to individually sign a report. I had fully expected that custom would be carried forward.

However, I want to make it abundantly plain that the information was conveyed to me that apparently that was not the procedure; not only was it unnecessary but, on the contrary, it was not done any more. That was the information that was conveyed to me.

I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no confusion in my mind as to the events.

In regard to your comment, sir, concerning the contents of the report, I do not think there should be any confusion in the public's mind that the individual members of the committee are not acquainted with the contents of that report. I think members can confirm that fact themselves, because they were very involved, studiously involved, in the drafting of the report.

What is really being debated now is a reading of the report in finished form prior to its printing. I wanted to clarify that, Mr. Speaker, for you and the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Taylor; that was the very point I was trying to make. But I will take a very close look at it.

On motion by Mr. J. A. Taylor, the debate was adjourned.

3:50 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

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, 1982:

Office of the Assembly program, $27,347,600;

And that supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $3,493,000.

MOTIONS

HEALTH ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the time allocation for consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health be changed to 16 hours.

Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the supplementary estimates presented Tuesday, October 13, be referred to the same committees to which the main estimates have been referred for consideration within the times already allocated.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitution be made: on the standing committee on procedural affairs, Mr. G. Taylor for Mr. Piché.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that the census now taken annually under the Assessment Act will be taken in full only in municipal election years. In other years a limited census will be conducted.

This bill will also transfer the responsibility for determining school support to the regional assessment commissioner from the clerk of the municipality.

Further, this bill will postpone to December 1982 the return of assessment rolls at full market value across the province. The bill will allow us to continue with the

section 86 reassessment program, which has been successfully implemented in 247 municipalities to date. Approximately 120 more municipalities are considering reassessment under

section 86 for implementation in 1982.

In addition, in this bill I am proposing administrative amendments to further clarify and update certain operating provisions within the Assessment Act.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 143,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 144,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to.

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 145,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act.

Motion agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES' MUNICIPAL PAYMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 146,

An Act respecting certain International Bridges.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before I introduce the next bill, may I apologize to the opposition parties? My understanding was that the statement I made earlier today was to have been communicated to them as it was to the press gallery but, unfortunately, for some reason or other communication seems to have broken down.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 147,

An Act to facilitate the Negotiation and Resolution of Municipal Boundary and Boundary-Related Issues.

Motion agreed to.

4 p.m.

TOWN OF LINCOLN ACT

Mr. Andrewes moved, seconded by Mr. Barlow, first reading of Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Town of Lincoln.

Motion agreed to.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved, seconded by Mr. Stokes, first reading of Bill 148,

An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the amendment is to have

part XI of the act, dealing with rent review, apply to rental units -- such as housing, apartments and mobile home parks -- operated by municipalities.

TERMINAL OPERATORS SAFEGUARD ACT

Mr. Kolyn moved, seconded by Mr. Pollock, first reading of Bill 149,

An Act to Safeguard Terminal Operators.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to set out standards for terminal and equipment use, with eye care for terminal operators and education of operators concerning hazards involved. Rest periods are made a requisite, and reimbursement for costs of required eye care is provided.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL SUNSHINE ACT

Ms. Bryden moved second reading of Bill 132,

An Act respecting Public Access to Meetings of Municipal Councils and Local Boards.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve any time that I do not use in my opening remarks for final comment.

Mr. Speaker: I was just going to point out that the honourable member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that time she may see fit for windup.

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question that people may ask is, "Do we need a Municipal Sunshine Act in Ontario?" Such laws have been enacted in some jurisdictions in the United States, but this would be a first for Canada.

I believe there is a growing consensus that effective democratic control of public bodies is possible only if those affected by their decisions have knowledge of how the decisions are reached. There is also a feeling that elected persons must be more accountable to their electors.

As we move to decentralize many functions of government to local bodies there is need for the persons affected by legislation at the local level to have more opportunity to participate in the process. For these reasons the need for sunshine legislation becomes more apparent.

The Ontario Royal Commission on Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy concluded in its 1980 report that "the existing law of Ontario is inadequate to ensure that members of the public are able to attend and observe the deliberations of municipal government institutions in Ontario." It recommended that all meetings of local government bodies and their committees, including executive committees and committees of the whole, be held in open session, subject to certain specified exemptions.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in a brief to the royal commission in 1978, stated it would support legislation "which would establish clear rules concerning the conduct of public business in municipalities by stipulating that all meetings of council, committees of council and local boards shall be open to the public, subject to certain specific exceptions required to protect the public interest and the rights of individuals."

The Ontario Press Council discussed the question in April 1981, when it dealt with a complaint from the London Free Press against the Elgin county council regarding secret committee meetings. It agreed with the royal commission that "public business ought to be conducted in public as much as possible and that the only sure remedy lay in legislation setting minimum standards of openness for all municipal bodies."

At the provincial level the sittings of the Legislature and most legislative committee meetings are open to the public. At present under the Municipal Act, municipal councils and local boards are required to hold open meetings, but the law is silent on meetings of committees of the whole and standing committees. A great deal of business is transacted in these committees.

While many municipal councils and local boards do open their committee meetings to the public, there is no obligation on them to do so. This bill will make it mandatory for councils and local boards to open all meetings except those dealing with certain exempted matters listed in the bill. The exempted matters include the purchase and sale of property, litigation, personnel matters, contract negotiations with employees and certain policing matters. The closing of meetings dealing with these matters is permissive, so councils and boards will have discretion to open any meeting dealing even with these exempt items if they so choose.

Local boards are defined in the bill to include school boards, police commissions and all special-purpose bodies such as utility commissions and library boards.

Recently the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) conducted a survey of the practices followed by Ontario municipalities with regard to the openness of meetings. They asked about meetings of standing committees and committees of the whole. The minister kindly supplied me with a report on the survey when I requested it. The report indicated that about 59 per cent of the approximately 400 municipalities which responded to the questions, held standing committee meetings open to both the public and the press, and only a little over 41 per cent opened committee of the whole meetings.

About half of the 832 municipalities covered by the report did not answer the question. The reason may be that many of the smaller municipalities do not have standing committees and many of the larger municipalities do not use committee of the whole. Also, the figures probably understate the extent of closed meetings, as those municipalities engaging in the practice are least likely to reply to the question.

4:10 p.m.

It is interesting to note that open meetings of standing committees are more common in cities, boroughs, regions and villages than in towns, townships and counties. About 90 per cent of the cities, boroughs and regions have open standing committee meetings, while only about one half of the towns, townships and counties do. Two thirds of villages reported open standing committee meetings, but a great many villages do not have standing committees. Only about one third of the local bodies and districts in the north open up standing committee meetings.

With regard to committee of the whole meetings, between 71 and 83 per cent of cities, boroughs and regions open them up. Only about one third of towns, townships and villages and a little over one half of the counties do.

In actual fact, the study found 168 municipalities that closed standing committee meetings to the public and the press, and 266 municipalities that closed committee of the whole meetings. Unfortunately, the report did not identify those municipalities. I think the public is entitled to know which ones closed committee meetings. I am asking the minister to table a more complete report on the survey showing this information. In my view, the need for sunshine legislation exists if any local bodies spending public funds exclude the press and public from any meetings at which public business is discussed and decisions are made.

I would like to stress that my bill will not ensure full opportunity for the public to follow the decision-making process, until we also have a freedom of information act on the statute books of this province that will be applicable to both provincial and municipal documents and reports. I am very disappointed that the government has again stalled the process of getting such a law on the books by piling yet another study on the mountain of studies and reports we already have on this subject. It makes me wonder how serious the government is about a freedom of information law.

I should also point out that an open meeting law cannot be effective without adequate notice to the public as to the dates, times, places and agendas of meetings. My bill calls for reasonable public notice, but it leaves the details of implementation to the municipalities. Some municipalities now publicize their meetings by placing notices and agendas in public libraries as well as in municipal offices. Others use the local press. I would hope newspapers might publish a regular weekly listing of all meetings scheduled as a public service. It would be up to the municipalities to provide them with a listing.

We have an example of the kind of legislation my bill represents in the Michigan Open Meetings Act, which was passed in 1976. A very wide swath of local publicly funded bodies is covered. It even includes public colleges and universities, community colleges and public hospital authorities. It provides for an enforcement procedure whereby any citizen can challenge in court the validity of a decision of a public body made in violation of the Open Meetings Act. It also permits citizens to request that their names be put on a mailing list so that they are notified in advance of any class of meetings. As far as I know, the act is operating satisfactorily.

We must recognize that provincial legislation in this field provides only a framework within which the decisions about openness are to be made. Local bodies will still decide whether to close meetings in the exempt areas. They will also decide what is reasonable notice of meetings. There will be fears that more open meetings will lead to more political grandstanding. There will also be concerns about the costs of advertising meetings and printing more agendas. Some local bodies may not be able to accommodate observers and press without renting or building bigger meeting places.

However, there are many offsetting advantages. Residents will have a greater opportunity to participate in shaping their own community. This is particularly true if deputations are allowed. Elected persons and officials will be more responsive to the people they govern. Citizens may even help them avoid costly mistakes. People will develop skills in self-government as a result of being involved in the process.

Openness will also lead to greater understanding of decisions and, therefore, to more acceptance of decisions and necessary compromises. A sense of fairness will come about if citizens can see that everyone is receiving equal treatment and consideration as far as possible. Openness will also enable citizens to evaluate the quality of government and of their elected representatives. In my opinion it is essential that if people are to have effective political control over services provided by local bodies we must have open meetings.

For the press and media, open meetings will add greatly to the public accountability of elected officials. It will enable citizens who do not have time to attend many meetings to be informed on the issues and deliberations of public bodies. Press and media focus will reinforce the participation of residents in deputations and lobbying activities.

Media coverage of council and board decisions without access to all meetings will be less informed and may possibly be inaccurate because information has to be channelled through third parties or come through leaks and brown paper envelopes. It is sometimes difficult for the press to sort out fact from fiction.

I do not think I need to convince the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) of the value of openness.

Mr. Nixon: They are all listening very carefully.

Ms. Bryden: Yes, I notice neither of them is here to hear my comments.

Last May 1, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, replying to a question from me, indicated he was unequivocally in favour of provincial legislation to open up local meetings. However, we have had no action from him since then. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, heading up that new ministry, also endorsed the principle at the August meeting of the municipal associations when he stated flatly, and I quote, "The rule must be openness." To date, there is no sign of legislation from him to back up his lipservice.

I have pointed out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that if he really wants to put the principle of open meetings into effect immediately he could throw his support behind my bill today. If there are details which he or other members do not accept, it can be amended in committee and put on the statute books this session. If he and other members instead stand up to block this bill, they will be indicating they really do not believe in open meetings and the essentiality of sunshine laws in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): You will have four minutes in closing.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I particularly asked my party caucus for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I have a very personal reason, and there are two particularly important points from where I sat when I was a municipal councillor.

Out in Etobicoke, where I was comptroller before joining this assembly, we received private members' bills regularly, and most often from the NDP, in which they would ask the municipal council to endorse, if you will, a motherhood subject. We would find ourselves debating this endorsement at the municipal level at some length, and, particularly if it involved a motherhood issue, it would be duly passed and would involve the circulation of a great deal of paper across Ontario.

I often complained to my fellow members in Etobicoke that there was not enough backup information representing the other point of view and that it was rather clever manipulation on behalf of the NDP to appear to be speaking on a variety of issues at one time.

We also took this matter up at Metropolitan Toronto council, and many Metro councillors felt that maybe we should talk to our MPPs and ask that when these private bills arrive at the municipal level two sides of the subject be clearly investigated.

We discussed the subject of freedom of information at great length in Etobicoke. I was the first chairman of the freedom of information committee in Etobicoke, and I can assure members it was a long, drawn-out process.

Sometimes we hear people comment on openness in government to the point where we actually begin to believe that possibly some of the decisions we are making are made in too much secrecy without due regard for the wishes and concerns of the people we represent. I would like to point out that we sat over a period of six months. We made a rather exhaustive study. We asked every ratepayer group, every politician, every public interest group to appear before the committee. When it all boiled down we found that what we were doing constituted, in just about all cases, about as much openness in government as one can get.

The concern I had, and something I learned to appreciate in greater depth, was that as a politician I was possibly not getting the whole story from the civil servant or the public servant, and that concerned me at a greater length than the matter of the public understanding or knowing how decisions are made.

In the process of studying this subject I also decided that there is a certain amount of danger in what the member for Beaches-Woodbine is suggesting in relation to decisions that we have to make. I understand that she has exemptions when we are talking about property acquisition, union negotiations and other items, but we found in Etobicoke that in a case of arriving at decisions to purchase property it was not necessarily the amount, it was not necessarily the decision, it was an in-depth discussion --

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to check if there is a quorum in the House.

There are more members of the third party than there are on the government benches.

Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Kells: Mr. Speaker, I was at the point where I was reiterating the Etobicoke experience on the subject of freedom of information. Two major situations came to mind as we processed government in the borough of Etobicoke. They were in the area of purchasing land from the local school board. The deliberations surrounding the purchase of that land did not necessarily involve the decision. It involved very sensitive handling of that whole purchase.

To my knowledge, possibly because of objections or potential misunderstandings, as a council we would have been unable to organize the purchase of the land, and we subsequently sold the land for a housing development and used the money we realized from the profit of the sale to build a new fire hail in our borough.

That pointed out to me very strongly the potential for two or three politicians or one ratepayer group to scuttle a decision that ultimately meant $1 million to the taxpayers of Etobicoke. I felt very strongly that if we had to have complete openness in all our deliberations, we would not have been able to make that major decision which worked so well for the taxpayer.

In the same vein, the situation cropped up again involving land in the north end of the borough. We were able -- because of the way we did business and they currently do business in Etobicoke -- to make the arrangements, which are again going to result in a considerable saving for the taxpayers in the borough. I would be afraid of any type of legislation that might inhibit the ability of a municipal politician to operate for the benefit of the taxpayers of the borough he represents.

4:30 p.m.

When we went all through the six months of hearings we put together a basic plan, not very much different from the way we had been operating. There were no major differences, but what we had been able to do was spell out the relationships between ourselves and the public servants and the relationships between ourselves and the public.

In this same regard the member for Beaches-Woodbine mentions the results of the survey. The cities or the towns and places are not identified, but she makes the observation that openness is most common in cities, boroughs, regions and villages. It would appear that openness is a fairly common thing in larger communities.

Of course, if one follows that through, it would be fairly simple to understand that where there are large media it almost guarantees openness and that possibly in areas where there is less media and less population, openness in government is not practised as often. Nevertheless, the ability to operate in the open is there, as she well knows. I think the percentages might be somewhat deceiving because some communities, for example, go to the committee of the whole House only when they are discussing sensitive subjects or subjects that might require a closed door.

I will not read the details of our policy in Etobicoke, but we evolved a written policy for council members; we evolved a policy for members of the public; we evolved a policy for agendas and their publication and we evolved a code for in-camera meetings, particularly in the area of triggering going into camera. When it was all said and done, everybody agreed. It was passed unanimously and accepted but we did not pass putting it into bylaw form.

In general terms, we know how we operate, the system works, we did not feel the need to put it in bylaw form, nor do I today feel the need to put openness in government into legislative form. I think the minister's position whereby a municipality on its own can pass or have a way of operating that is open is the best way to go.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the parliamentary assistant is here, but I am very disappointed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- who only a few months ago when he assumed the new responsibility said how much attention he would pay to this new portfolio -- is not here. Maybe one of these days he will show that he is serious about his portfolio rather than just speaking about it. I am glad to support --

Mr. Rotenberg: He is in another municipality doing a very important job with that municipality.

Mr. Epp: I am sure, I am sure. The parliamentary assistant is saying the Legislature is not important.

Mr. Rotenberg: The Legislature is important. Municipal problems are important too.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to say I will support the bill in principle and I am sure a number of my colleagues will support it in principle. I believe it is something whose time has come.

We all know, and as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has indicated, a lot of municipalities -- small municipalities and large municipalities -- have had closed meetings to date. For many decades some of them have closed their meetings to the public. I do not think that is a healthy situation in a democracy. I believe the public has a genuine right to know what is going on in those meetings.

I am surprised that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not taken a more active role in drawing to the attention of these municipalities how they are violating the trust of the ratepayers in their municipalities and in getting them to open up their meetings, be they committee meetings or council meetings, to the general public.

What has been happening in a number of situations is that they have been taking straw votes. They have had closed meetings, in camera meetings, secret meetings, and they have taken straw votes among the councillors or the aldermen of that municipality. Then the same vote is taken in the open later on, after they know exactly which way the decision is going to go and exactly which way the various representatives are going to vote.

As we all know, the London Free Press drew to the attention of the Ontario Press Council the difficulty they had in getting genuine information from these closed council meetings. I was surprised to learn from one

article that one of the councillors had the audacity to say he was opposed to open committee meetings for the simple reason that "committee meetings are only recommendations to council."

On that basis, despite the fact that this was where a lot of discussion -- probably the major part of the discussion -- was taking place, he had the gall to say the public did not have a right to know what each of the individual councillors was saying on a particular subject.

Nevertheless, after 132 years in operation in Lambton county -- and it was an alderman in that particular municipality who was quoted -- the committee, by a close vote of 27 to 22, voted in favour of having an open meeting. That says a lot for democracy. At least 27 people thought the people had a right to know what was going on.

From my own experience in the city of Waterloo we always had the committee meetings open, except for the kind of exemptions that are built into this particular bill, both at the committee and at the council meeting. I do not recall that we encountered any real problems.

The only problem we did encounter was at one time when the meetings of the administrative committee, of which the mayor was a member, discussed various matters. At that time, more and more aldermen were participating in the administrative committee meetings; it was not originally expected that they would be there, but they started coming more often, because they were in various private endeavours. At one point we had to make the decision that no elected representatives could come to the administrative meetings, simply because it looked as if it were a secret meeting and decisions were being made before they went to council.

Before my time is up, I want to speak on a few reservations I have about the bill, and maybe the member for Beaches-Woodbine can clarify some of these situations for us or can clarify what she intended in the bill, because it is not clear from reading the bill what is really intended.

For instance, would executive committee meetings be closed? She does not refer to school boards but I assume, since they do not fall within the Municipal Act, that school boards would be exempt from this particular --

Mr. Breaugh: Has the member read the bill? It gives him a definition.

Mr. Epp: I have read the bill. She says --

Ms. Bryden: School boards are under the definition of local boards.

Mr. Epp: Another

part is in

section 3(b), where she is speaking about the purchase and sale of property. A municipality not only purchases property but often also purchases services. It is sometimes very difficult to make some of these facts public at a particular time. If a bill of this nature were to be implemented, it should exempt services in addition to the sale of property.

When we speak about personnel matters, it appears to me that if only the person most directly affected in a decision can decide whether that particular meeting should be open or closed we are getting to a kind of kangaroo court situation. I think the council or the body making that decision should have the right to decide whether it is open or closed, and not only the person who is affected.

4:40 p.m.

With respect to

section 4(2), which states that everyone "directly affected by any matter ... shall be given written notice," I find that somewhat cumbersome. I presume the member is not saying this should be only an advertisement in the paper; I suppose she is saying everyone should receive written notice. I think she is nodding her head in favour of saying she is not saying that only an ad in the paper will suffice.

I draw to her attention that what one could have here is a council making decisions on matters that directly affect the public, such as in a budget meeting, and having to send out personal notices to every ratepayer in the municipality, saying, "We are going to have a budget meeting, and we are going to be discussing all the items at the time of that budget." That would be particularly expensive. It is an expense the public should not have to endure. In all fairness to the member, I do not believe she intended that to occur. Yet if one reads the bill the way it is stated, one could easily draw that conclusion from it.

I believe there are other examples whereby, if one is talking about changing zoning regulations, according to the Ontario Municipal Act, people within 400 feet are informed of a hearing with respect to zone changes. Maybe that would suffice in this case. I am not quite sure.

I know the time is drawing nigh when my time will be up. I would be glad to support the bill, but with the reservations I have indicated.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of Bill 132, and I welcome the comments of the previous speaker and his support for the bill in principle. We are all aw